Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.5.4-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Committee on the Environment’s vote on this report sends a clear message to industry and to the national authorities to thoroughly monitor chemical substances, and this must be accompanied by the elimination of substances that are toxic and harmful to health and to the environment.
We therefore fully support the approach of this report which improves, on a number of points, the already ambitious Commission proposal.
Having said that, in order to be understood, our message must also be balanced.
This is why we support a pragmatic approach and reject a raft of unrealistic demands that would heavily penalise the European chemical industry. I wish to point out that this industry directly or indirectly involves no less than 5 million jobs.
I shall turn first of all to paragraph 16, which calls for the registration of all substances of less than one tonne in weight: this means that 100 000 products are involved instead of the 30 000 proposed by the Commission, tens of thousands of files, impossible bureaucracy, a nightmare for the numerous SMEs in the sector and all of this for products which, for the most part, never reach the market.
Extending the scope of the authorisation procedure (paragraph 38) is also unfeasible: in order to avoid an unmanageable situation, we call, in Amendment No 68, for substances for which there is no proof of toxicity to be excluded.
In conclusion, although we must send a message that is powerful, it must also be credible. Sending a declaration of war to industry, to the workers and to the national authorities seems neither appropriate nor productive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples