Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-212"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.7.3-212"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, every year 100 people die in my West Midlands constituency of asbestos-related diseases. Every year 4,500 people die in the UK from these diseases according to the trade unions, and studies predict, as Mrs Thorning-Schmidt said, that in excess of between 250,000 and 500,000 will die cross Western Europe in the next 35 years. The evidence is there. The facts are clear, based on scientific studies. Exposure to asbestos can maim and kill and asbestos workers have to be protected.
Manufacturing of asbestos has been banned in almost all Member States, but there are still millions of tonnes of asbestos left in Europe's buildings, industrial plants, railway carriages that were built in the 1950s and the 1960s, etc. I agree with the report that the presence of asbestos has to be presumed in a building if it has not been proved otherwise.
Workers will continue to be exposed for many years because of demolition, removal, refurbishment and maintenance still having to take place. That is why I sought further tightening of exposure levels in committee by proposing an amendment, which was accepted by committee, which would effectively halve the exposure allowed. Instead of the eight-hour exposure limit, it was opting for a four-hour exposure limit. It would also reflect the current working patterns within an industry because shifts are a lot less than they are in other sections of the industry. An eight-hour reference period will allow higher levels of exposure over a shorter period like one to two hours, which to my mind is unacceptable. I would like to see this limit for all workers who are exposed to asbestos, with the exception of people working in asbestos cement. I genuinely believe that is a separate case.
It is important we do not have different exposure limits, however, depending on the type of work, as Amendment No 21 has, but this will be dealt with in conciliation. I urge you to vote for Amendment No 21 and for the last six words of Amendment No 42. My understanding is that if Amendment No 21 is accepted then we can vote for the last sentence of Amendment No 42 which deals with asbestos cement, but we need clarification on that from the President.
I urge you to vote for this excellent report. It is one example of an EU directive where there is compelling scientific and medical evidence that it is needed to save lives across the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples