Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.11.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when I arrived in Brussels this morning, I found I had received a letter from the World Nature Fund, saying that I should soon receive the results of the blood tests I took a few months ago, designed to ascertain which chemicals we have in our blood. I assume that many of us took this blood test. This test will probably show that, in common with everyone else, I have a majority of quite foreign chemicals in my blood, and some of them will probably also be such persistent organic pollutants as we are debating today.
The fact is that we know relatively little about what this means for our health and fitness, but we know enough to be concerned. We have been presented with a series of alarming reports to the effect that different chemicals produce diseases and that they can, for example, affect our ability to have children. With that as part of the background, this proposal is very welcome, and not only the proposal but, above all, the compromise. The fact is that this compromise that has been negotiated is a significant improvement upon the proposal presented by the Commission. I should, above all, like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm for her work.
I should also like to draw attention to a number of points I see as crucial improvements. The first is the legal basis. I think that the Commission’s tendency to treat environmental issues more and more as issues concerning the internal market is very unfortunate. From an ecological point of view, it is quite irresponsible to proceed in this way. It also reduces the Member States’ opportunities to introduce more progressive legislation. The EU is in that way preventing countries that wish and are able to take the lead from doing so, and that is unacceptable. We hope that, when it presents proposals like this one, concerning the environment, the Commission will be influenced by these considerations and stick to the legal basis for achieving environmental objectives.
I also think that the core of the proposal – the clear ban on production, use and marketing – is very important. It is particularly good that the ban on hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
including lindane, is included in the proposal.
This reminds us that the EU’s chemicals policy does not in practice work. We know that it is a very small portion of the chemicals on the market that really have been tested and whose effects are really known to us. A small part of chemicals policy is covered by this proposal, and we now need efficient, uniform chemicals legislation within the framework of the REACH system for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. It is a proposal that is now being attacked quite vigorously, but we need to find out what these chemicals entail, even when, as is the case with many chemicals, they exist in relatively modest quantities. If too many of these chemicals are exempted, we shall be without an effective chemicals policy. I think this work shows that it is only right to take proper decisions when it comes to issues concerning chemicals, and it indicates the way ahead prior to the discussion of REACH.
I wish again to thank the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples