Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-070"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cleaner air for Europe – Thematic strategy on air pollution (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060925.13.1-070"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-25-Speech-1-0712
lpv:speaker	lp:Satu Hassi2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Vihreä liitto (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as has been said, air pollution kills more than 300 000 Europeans prematurely every year. Experts in environmental health have said that the Commission’s proposal was bewilderingly inadequate, but will the European Parliament now give cause for even greater bewilderment? The majority on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are actually proposing that current legislation should be made less stringent. It postponed entry into force by more than 10 years, and would double the number of days when limit values for pollution can be exceeded, from 30 to 55 a year. It offered the excuse that in the distant future yearly limit values would come down from 40 to 30 micrograms per cubic metre. This is only an apparent improvement, however, as the current limit value, if it may be exceeded on more than 35 days, in practice represents an annual average of 30 micrograms. It is a falsehood that companies with daily limit values would have a negligible impact on health. On the contrary, the hospitals always have more heart patients coming in when daily pollution levels have been exceeded. This scandalous suggestion by the Committee on the Environment was justified by saying that the Member States could not do any better. The Member States themselves in the Council, however, have provisionally agreed on a tougher line, where postponement would only be for three years. Following this preliminary display of agreement in the Council, the three largest groups made a more spruced up compromise proposal, which would nevertheless still postpone the entry into force of norms for longer than that in the proposal by the EC Council of Ministers. It has been awful to witness how the negotiators in certain groups have taken guidance from the automotive industry. It will be a shame indeed if Parliament’s largest groups succumb to pressure from lobbies in the car industry. Ladies and gentlemen, I appeal to you not to agree to the proposal by the Committee on the Environment or Mrs Weisgerber and others to postpone the entry into force of legislation, but to stand up for the rights of our citizens to breathe clean air."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph