Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.5.4-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I have just voted against the Schörling Report. The Group of the European People's Party/European Democrats, to which I belong, did not manage to secure a majority in favour of its constructive amendments. What has now been adopted has clearly been influenced too much by ideology. Of course this is about environmental safety, but it is also about competitive and innovative jobs in the chemical industry.
Over the last few weeks I have been investigating the consequences of the Schörling Report by talking to those whom it will affect. I have visited production plants and had discussions with management, workers and unions. None of those parties is calling into question the aim of the Commission's White Paper, which is to secure the sustainability of the chemical industry. From an ecological point of view, we obviously need the greatest possible protection of the environment and consumers. From an economic point of view, we need uniform basic conditions so as to ensure that there is fair competition for SMEs, users and processors. From a social point of view this is about having a high level of health protection and high standards of industrial safety.
At least we were able to prevent the registration requirement for substances with a production volume of one tonne per year from being introduced. As it is, the current classification of substances above 10 tonnes per year and the reporting requirement before they are put on the market is only being managed by the authorities with great difficulty.
The European People's Party Group did succeed in one respect: there was no majority in favour of double testing all chemicals. This does not increase safety and is costly in terms of time and money; incidentally it is completely unnecessary because the authorities already examine these data.
I do not consider it acceptable to find substitutes for dangerous substances and methods which should otherwise be banned. You cannot define a substance as 'dangerous' on the basis of its properties, but only on the basis of its uses. Take a knife: it is extremely useful at home and in everyday life, but it becomes dangerous if it is used as a weapon for anything from attacking people to hijacking aircraft.
It is also regrettable that it has been agreed that confidential data should be made public: if production volumes, procedures or special compositions, which account for a market advantage, all have to be declared, then we may as well do away with competition right now. This is the lifeblood of our companies. Any competitor can easily imitate ingenious systems. We need to establish once and for all which data are subject to property rights and which are not.
Before the second reading in Parliament, I hope that the three committees working on this will put their heads together and come up with a more balanced proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples