Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.7.3-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming and thanking Mr de Miguel, State Secretary for European Affairs of the Spanish presidency. I would like to thank him for his understanding. We ran out of time, but sometimes things are very difficult.
Amendment No 41, cannot be followed by the Commission because it would introduce, in the case of activities involving sporadic and low-intensity exposures, unnecessary additional bureaucratic burden on enterprises and national administrations without any additional benefit.
Finally, the Commission considers that Amendments Nos 3, 6, the second part of Amendment No 23, Amendments Nos 24, 26 and 28 are already contained in substance in the different articles of the proposal and therefore cannot be accepted.
Before summing up, there is a real political question: will this directive as it stands now prohibit any export to third countries after 2005? The answer, unfortunately, is clear: no, it cannot. It is one of the main issues of discussion between the Commission and the Council. A total ban could be the answer but, in that case – and the Commission has no objections to this approach – you must admit that it is a very complicated problem because in the case of a total ban we must take into account not only the problems of demolition or maintenance – and the workers who are exposed to these activities – but also the fact that there is a list of different products which contain very small amounts of asbestos which is not dangerous, and we must see how we can solve this very complicated internal market problem.
There was a question about the exclusion of asbestos cement. As my colleague, who is an expert on this issue, tells me there is a real problem with this product so we cannot exclude it. At least it is not something less dangerous than the others which we exclude.
Finally, to sum up, the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 34 and 39. It can accept in part Amendments Nos 20, 23 and 25. It rejects Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42.
It was a very interesting debate and there is no need for me to refer to the substance of the directive because everybody agrees that this is one of the most important directives concerning health and safety in our legislation.
I want to congratulate Mrs Damião on her excellent report on such a sensitive and technically difficult dossier as asbestos.
In order to complement the prohibition of marketing in the use of asbestos and products containing it, it is necessary to amend and update the provisions of the existing directive in order to focus the preventive measures on today's most exposed workers, namely those carrying out repairs, demolition and maintenance activities.
I would like to congratulate the House on the quality of its amendments. I very much understand why you so much insist on the need to increase the levels of protection, not only for workers but also for the general population and the environment. Unfortunately, this is not possible within the scope of Article 137 of the Treaty, which is the basis of this proposal.
I am going to reply to the Members' proposals through my comments and my justification for rejection or approval of the amendments.
The Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 34 and 39, since they improve on the quality of the text and/or clarify its meaning. Although I can agree to the ideas behind Amendments Nos 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14, the Commission cannot accept them for reasons of legal coherence and legislative technique.
The Commission has to reject Amendment No 16 and the second part of Amendment No 25, because the employers' responsibility is clearly established in the framework of Directive 89/391 and any further qualification would introduce legal uncertainties as regards where this responsibility lies.
As regards the limit value, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 15, 21 and 42, because they would introduce two different limit values, implying different protection levels for workers carrying out different activities. In addition, the expression of the limit values as a time-weighted average in a period of four hours instead of eight hours has to be rejected because it would create confusion when compared to the same values in international standards which use a reference period of eight hours. Amendments Nos 5, 10, 27, 38 and 40 cannot be accepted by the Commission because Article 137, on which the proposal for a directive is based, does not allow for the recognition of and financial compensation for occupational diseases and concerns only the protection of workers. In any case the compensation issue is a subject of subsidiarity.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 30, 33, 35, 36 and 37. Amendment No 29 cannot be accepted since Directive 89/391 imposes an obligation on the employer to provide adequate training for workers and not merely to make training available."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples