Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051115.25.2-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we believe that the House should reject this draft. Even the abbreviation by which it is known makes it sound as if it has come about purely for the benefit of the rich. After giving much thought to the matter, these latter have thought up a procedure that is authoritarian and centralist in its very concept. It goes without saying that they have packaged it as a noble attempt to protect health and the environment, yet it will mean bankruptcy for small and medium-sized enterprises, and cannot fail to deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their jobs.
Few will benefit from the market being taken over by large chemical companies. Furthermore, any hypothetical health benefits from environmental improvements, which themselves are pure theory at present, would be vanishingly small compared to the health problems suffered by those who have been left unemployed. These people would be frustrated by the loss of their livelihood, their means of existence, their opportunities for development and their hope. More information and a supposed increase in consumer confidence in products are not worth having if the cost in economic and social terms is so large.
Proof of this cunning scheme to ruin the weaker members of society can be seen in the fact that chemical companies have pre-empted the proposal for a directive by carrying out the recommended tests on toxic substances, without any consensus having been reached on whether their findings should be shared. Tests should be performed centrally on the most toxic substances in order to obtain reliable data, and these substances should be withdrawn from the market, in particular if they are carcinogenic or harmful to the reproductive system or other systems.
We support the international campaign ‘Objection!’, which has been launched in protest at the costs that will be incurred for no good reason due to REACH. A proposal that is genuinely aimed at protecting human health and the environment should be drafted to replace the current proposal, which is primarily concerned with business-related factors. Another question I should like to ask is how anyone with a clear conscience can be in favour of a proposal for a directive to which only somewhat over 1 000 amendments have now been tabled, out of a former total of 2 000 or 3 000. On top of that, establishing which amendments have gained the approval of the House during the course of the debate is physically and mentally impossible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples