Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-235"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.12.2-235"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I tabled this question not out of concerns about health or trading issues but out of concern for the credibility of the European Commission. I was in this Parliament when the ban was introduced originally and I voted for a minority report that was proposed by Professor Tom Raftery, an expert on all these matters. He firmly believed that the motivation behind the proposal to ban these products was political. As a German Member of Parliament told me: "Professor Raftery is right, but there is a wave of hysteria in Germany so I must vote against him". I do not think that a wave of hysteria is sufficient grounds for legislation by the European Commission.
My understanding is that the Commission's position is not supported by the best scientific evidence from the United Nations, the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia. These people are not noted for putting the health of their own citizens at risk, and they too base their policies on what they regard as sound scientific advice.
I want to ask the Commission if it agrees with me that in the present climate, when the European Commission is being put into a position of banning so many products and processes – even research itself in some instances – it is extremely important that what we do is seen to be soundly based and reliable. To do anything else will undermine the long-term credibility of the European Commission. I believe that we are doing that in this case."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples