Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-350"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Chemicals strategy2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011113.13.2-350"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-11-13-Speech-2-3512
lpv:speaker	lp:Kathleen Van Brempt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-01-19--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2000-01-19--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (2000-01-13--2003-09-28)3 member; PES (2000-01-13--2003-09-28)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are apparently all in agreement, for I notice that even the PPE-DE believes that the current chemical policy is characterised by a lack of substance, too much bureaucracy, powerlessness to acquire knowledge about all substances and also the incapacity to take measures. That is why support for the White Paper is so important, but even more so, support for the improvements which are being proposed in the Schörling report. Pressure from the chemical industry has been enormous, particularly in the last few days. Apparently, it does not lack the necessary financial resources to set up big campaigns and to portray a large majority of this Parliament as a bunch of eco-fundamentalists. But I believe that the outcome of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was balanced and that it therefore deserves every backing tomorrow. I should like to mention a few essential points. I am of the opinion that, in the long term, all substances will need to be registered, but that in the medium- and short-term, priorities will need to be set; the latter, however, not simply on the basis of production volumes. Smaller volumes too must also be granted sufficient attention, and the starting point should really be the intrinsic characteristics of a substance. As Mr Bernd Lange stated a moment ago, the substitution principle is essential. If a less dangerous substance is available and tested, what logical reasons do we then have not to use it, other than perhaps financial considerations? A second essential element is that we must be able to ban substances of high concern, such as persistent and bioaccumulative substances and endocrine disrupters, unless they are essential from a social point of view and no alternatives are available. We should then be able to authorise them under strict licensing. Last but not least, maximum consumer information must be provided via clear labelling, but also via publicly accessible databases and information on the substances."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph