Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.27.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I abstained in today’s vote on the second reading of REACH. I did so because I cannot support the dilutions of Parliament’s position, as adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in October, that the Council has forced.
My criticism of the agreement revolves around three main points, which are as follows:
The substitution principle does not apply to all chemicals. Instead, many chemicals, including carcinogenic substances, will continue to be exempted from the requirement for substitution, providing that they are ‘properly controlled’.
The right to information is being watered down in that it covers fewer chemicals and will apply to concentrations higher than those deemed desirable by Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
The principle of responsibility is not being included in the actual body of the legislative text but is instead being pushed out to the preamble. This is serious, especially for the many chemicals with little or no associated information requirement.
My abstention is not a failure but, rather, represents the laying down of a marker of my dissatisfaction with the Council’s position. I do not, however, wish to aim any criticism at the rapporteur, Mr Sacconi. On the contrary, I would like to congratulate him most warmly for his splendid work on a difficult issue over a long period of time.
Today’s vote paves the way for REACH to enter into force at the beginning of the second half of 2007. My work, and that of many others, to improve this legislation further starts now."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples