Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-13-Speech-2-394"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-01-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090113.30.2-394"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-01-13-Speech-2-3952
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens Holm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2006-09-27--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2006-10-10--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2006-10-12--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2006-09-27--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, dichloromethane or DCM is a dangerous chemical that can cause cancer, eye damage and acute damage to organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. DCM is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and as a paint stripper and degreaser, amongst other uses. Some Member States, such as Sweden, Denmark and Austria, have already introduced a ban on DCM. It is a great thing that the issue of DCM is now on the agenda. It is even better that this agreement will mean a total ban on DCM when it comes to ordinary consumers. For this, I can but give high praise to our rapporteur, Mr Schlyter. Well done, Carl! Unfortunately, workers in the pharmaceutical industry and those working on cleaning up walls and façades will continue to run the risk of suffering the effects of dichloromethane. This agreement will not, I am sad to say, mean a total ban on the professional use of DCM. This is a serious failing, and one that I hold the Commission entirely responsible for. This derogation, however, has been framed in such a way that what I hope is the small number of Member States that want to use DCM must guarantee that their workers do not suffer as a result. The burden of proof is thus on those countries that want to engage in the limited use of DCM, which must prove that the substance will be used in the safest possible manner and guarantee the protection of workers. In the end, this is quite acceptable. By and large, this is a good agreement. I would like to urge the Commission to draw inspiration from this decision. Yes, we can! Let us now go further. I urge the Commission, please, is it not possible for you to give us an indication that, in the future, there will be more bans on hazardous substances such as carcinogenic azo dyes, bisphenol A and the flame retardant deca-BDE? If the EU cannot do this, why can you not permit individual Member States to go further and introduce their own bans? You, in the Commission, even go so far as to force the Member States to lift restrictions that they sometimes already have. My own country, Sweden, for example, was forced to allow azo dyes after joining the EU in 1995. Following threats from the Commission about legal action in the European Court of Justice, Sweden has now begun to permit deca-BDE. That is unacceptable and, more than anything, it is not environmentally friendly. That is not the way to conduct a progressive programme of environmental legislation. Commission, Commissioner Verheugen, please do convince me otherwise! Prove that environmental considerations take priority over the demands of the market in more cases than this single example."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph