Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-11-Speech-1-125"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Chemicals Agency – Amendment of Directive 67/548/EEC on dangerous substances (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"hu"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061211.14.1-125"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-11-Speech-1-1262
lpv:speaker	lp:Péter Olajos2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-28--2006-12-31)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; IMCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Magyar Demokrata Fórum (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"After three years of debates, we have reached the point where we can give a final judgment on the draft law known as REACH. Several options are on offer for the vote on Wednesday. One: we could support the Council’s common position. Two: we can reject the entire proposal. Three: we can accept the compromise package, and thus bring REACH into existence. The first and most important question is whether we need new legislation at all, or whether the laws currently in force are adequate for resolving our concerns for environmental protection and human and animal health, and ensuring that the desired amount of information is made available. In other words, do we need new legislation in order to find out more about the 30 000 chemicals which surround us every day? The answer is a resounding yes. We need new, comprehensive regulations, within the framework of which the large-scale, often postponed review of chemicals can be carried out. The other important question is whether the compromise that has been reached is good enough. Are the solutions that have been reached better than those of the first reading, or has the legislation simply been diluted and further weakened in the course of the six ‘trialogues’? Let us address these questions one by one: what were our most important goals after the first reading? We wanted a stronger and stricter substitution, and we have got it. We wanted to make stricter rules governing manufacturers’ responsibility, and we have made them. We wanted to restrict animal testing, and we have done so. We wanted a stricter, but practicable registration, and we have achieved it. We wanted the OSOR principle to prevail and to support SMEs, and this too, we have achieved. All in all, we can say that the compromise package is much better than the one put forward at first reading; we have fought successfully for a stronger and even stricter REACH. Ladies and gentlemen, for these reasons, the conclusion cannot be other than to support the compromise."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph