Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-17-Speech-4-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051117.14.4-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
From the very outset of the debate on a new European law on chemicals, I have argued in favour of the Commission proposals being revised in order to secure better protection for health and the environment in Europe than was formerly the case, while reducing excessive bureaucratic demands. I have therefore supported the line taken by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. With this end in mind, today’s vote saw the adoption of a number of improvements to the Commission proposal:
1. the compromise reached by Mr Sacconi and Mr Nassauer on the subject of registration, which markedly reduces bureaucratic demands;
2. the exclusion of substances regulated elsewhere or not presenting any potential risk;
3. the tightening-up of requirements in respect of chemicals present in tobacco smoke.
It has to be said, though, that the vote saw the adoption of a number of negative and indefensible points, notably amendments imposing time limits on authorisation. This is impractical, bureaucratic and unnecessary in terms of the protection of health and the environment.
Since improvements had been made to three essential points in the Commission proposal, I voted ‘yes’ in the final vote. I hope that the Council of Ministers will reject the nonsensical proposals, such as that for a five-year time limit and will accept those that are more rational, and that the end-result will be that we end up with a workable REACH."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples