Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-351"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.13.2-351"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Langen report in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and believe I was right to do so. On the other hand, I also understand how our colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy put a different emphasis on things. That, too, I consider understandable, for otherwise we would not need both committees and could do everything in one. I also take the view that it is only this tension between the various committees that makes it possible for something sensible to emerge at the end of the day.
I will be quite frank in saying that I have a number of difficulties with the Schörling report. The main one is perhaps that I believe substances should be evaluated not only according to the danger they may present, but also according to their characteristics. In this sense, they are not simply capable of being substituted for each other, at least not all of them. There are substances that are dangerous, but which are useful in certain chemical processes. Secondly, I believe that whether or not a substance is dangerous has to be founded on scientific statements. It must be verifiable. I am always very dubious about suspicions of danger or risk. Being very subjective, these can be understood but not verified.
The vast number of testers required leads me to ask where they all are. Safety does not increase in line with the amount of hyphenation or the number of regulations, but is increased by actual testing. So we will have to look into that. And one more little observation: which substances are actually necessary to society? How does one ascertain something like that? Who ascertains something like that? I still need some clarification on that point, but I am happy to listen. I would, by the way, like to remind the President that, this evening, we are discussing over EUR 800 billion in turnover, 400 billion of it in energy and 400 billion in chemistry. That is a hell of a lot for two and a half hours."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples