Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-192"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051115.25.2-192"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-11-15-Speech-2-1932
lpv:speaker	lp:Hiltrud Breyer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-12-06--2006-12-31)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the draft REACH regulation would lose its bite if it were watered down in any way, shape or form. The misguided compromise hammered out between Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering is nothing less than a wish come true for the German chemical industry. Industry would win the day, while the environment and consumer protection would lose out. The compromise would be the final nail in the coffin for this reform of chemicals policy. We need a hard-hitting REACH and the equivalent of an MOT for chemicals, and we must not consent to companies being rewarded for their failure to provide information or for their lack of transparency. Surely it cannot be right that of the 30 000 substances that the regulation was originally intended to cover, only 12 000 are left. This would represent a complete abandonment of the fundamental principle underpinning REACH, namely that no substance may be marketed unless safety data is available. One of the mainstays of REACH is the reversal of the burden of proof, yet there are those in this House who even want to do away with this idea. I would call on Members to free themselves from the clutches of the German chemical industry, and to avoid setting yet another precedent that would mean that we would be treated in future as a carbon copy of the grand coalition in Berlin. Without a hard-hitting REACH, people will become guinea pigs for untested chemicals, and the principle of flying blind, guided only by ignorance, would be enshrined in law. Without REACH, the risk of cancer and the incidence of environmental illnesses will increase. I would therefore call on you to voice your support for a hard-hitting REACH. Industry must not be left to decide for itself what data it does and does not provide. It is a curious fact that all those Members of the House who have claimed to be acting out of concern for small and medium-sized enterprises have tabled amendments that would make matters worse for these latter."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph