Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-077"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.6.2-077"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank and congratulate Mrs Ries. She has done important work in fleshing out the Environment and Health Action Plan more effectively. The action programme itself is disappointing. Whilst I do, of course, recognise the need for research, an action programme also requires strong measures to tackle health problems, and those measures are lacking. In recent weeks, our discussions have centred around dangerous substances and the conditions under which they can, or must, be removed from the market. Softening agents in toys are the most prominent, but there are also other substances at issue. Although our group accepted the text as approved in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we did actually want a stricter approach. If a substance is dangerous, it should be removed from the market without delay and without waiting for safe alternatives.
A second subject of discussion was smoking. Tobacco smoke has a devastating effect on the health of passive smokers. We would therefore call for active policy to ban smoking in public places. We urge all Member States to draw inspiration from the Irish and Italian examples. The environment and health report is topical. Air pollution, in particular, is an important problem in Europe. According to calculations and studies commissioned by the Commission, every year, more than 300 000 people die prematurely in Europe as a result of air pollution. In the Netherlands, the figure is 13 000. Little imagination is required to assume that deaths occur more frequently among people living near motorways and industrial areas than in people living in leafy and exclusive residential areas. Over the past 20 years, Europe has, of course, taken measures that have brought about major reductions in emissions. The use of catalytic converters in cars has been successful, but too little effort has been made to date, and the statistics are alarming. What is to be done? First of all, we should, of course, better observe existing legislation, but more can, and must, be done. Where, for example, are the soot filters in cars? Also, we should question whether the limits and limit values in legislation are adequate. In the report ‘Signals 2004’, the European Environment Agency noted that there is increasing evidence to suggest that dust and ozone concentrations impact on health below current health protection values. A European approach is required to protect the environment, health and the consumer. In the framework of the Lisbon process, ambitious environmental policy is an incentive for technological development and for boosting European competitiveness. If we do not commit to environmental quality, then not only do we do public health, but also European industry, a huge disservice. At the Detroit car show last month, a zero-emission passenger car was launched, the like of which we have not seen at European car shows. Over here, we remain stuck in the question as to who should pay for soot filters. I prefer an ambitious Europe with adequate measures to protect public health, and we should make those soot filters compulsory without delay. That is vital."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples