Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-13-Speech-2-398"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090113.30.2-398"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying a few words to Mr Watson. You have played an important role in bringing about this proposal. At the time when you told me in person about the problem which you had had for several years with the Commission, I realised that there were alternatives to this substance and I am sure you will agree that from then on things moved very quickly. I personally instructed my Directorate-General to present the proposal because it was clear to me as a result of my dealings with you that there were alternatives. I have stated on another occasion in this Parliament, and I would ask Mr Holm in particular to listen to this, that although I am the Commissioner with responsibility for enterprise and industry, I do not believe that an industrial product which is hazardous should remain on the market simply so that it can be used to earn money. I am of the opinion that, when there is an alternative which can replace a hazardous industrial product, it should be replaced. This is the principle which I have adhered to when we discussed and adopted REACH in this Parliament. All the substances which you referred to, Mr Holm, are now governed by REACH.
Dichloromethane would normally also be covered under the terms of REACH, but because the health risks are so evident and because there have been so many cases, we have given priority to this substance. It is possible that we will have to act in the same way in the case of other substances if the health risks are equally obvious and if we cannot wait until the very comprehensive and demanding REACH procedure has been completed.
I would also like to make it clear, Mr Holm, that I would also have voted in favour of a more far-reaching compromise. If Parliament had been able to agree with the Council on banning the commercial use of dichloromethane, I would have voted in favour this evening. Please do not hold the Commission responsible for the fact that there are several Member States who did not want to take this further for reasons which I am not familiar with. This is the reason why the Commission presented its proposal in the way that it did, because we wanted to produce a proposal which had a chance of being accepted and this is now what has happened.
My last remark concerns the comments made by Mr Bowis in relation to the toxic effects of the alternatives. With chemicals it is always a question of weighing up the degree of risk involved. Our thorough and comprehensive studies have shown that none of the alternative substances currently on sale have the properties of dichloromethane which are so dangerous, in other words the direct toxic effect on the central nervous system. This occurs only with dichloromethane and not with the other substances.
We are aware of very few accidents involving the alternative substances. This also applies to countries where the use of dichloromethane has already been banned, such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden. If the situation should change, the Commission will, of course, investigate and, if necessary, propose measures governing other substances.
Finally, I would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr Holm, which I temporarily forgot, concerning the question of whether the Commission will force Member States to abolish progressive environmental or health regulations, because they conflict with internal market regulations. The Commission will not do this. Current legislation states explicitly that Member States have the right to enact national regulations which differ from those of the internal market if they believe that this is necessary for health or environmental reasons.
As I am responsible for monitoring the notification of these differing regulations, I can tell you that the Commission acts on the basis of a clear and unambiguous principle in this case. We take the healthcare-related and environmental arguments of the Member States seriously. If they enact different regulations for these reasons, we do not force them to revoke their environmental and health regulations. If you have any information from recent years to back up your accusation, I would like to find out more specific details, so that I can refute your claim. The case that you mentioned dates back to 1995, which means that I had nothing to do with it."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples