Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-220"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-04-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Workers' exposure to asbestos2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020410.7.3-220"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-04-10-Speech-3-2212
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie-Hélène Gillig2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EMPL (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, we have just heard various positions on asbestos, which is a genuine public health problem, that are all based on the same observation but arrive at different conclusions, namely that asbestos poses a highly significant risk that must not be underestimated, that the data are not conclusive enough, and that we must certainly not risk making companies pay too many charges. This is not very responsible. The said conclusions, which underestimate a risk as significant as exposure to asbestos, are clearly to be given as much consideration as the grounds for applying the precautionary principle. The original Community legislation prioritised this protection within the context of the manufacture and processing of asbestos. This legislation has borne fruit, but a total ban on production has not yet been implemented in certain countries. Today, the question of the upkeep and maintenance of asbestos found by chance during building works requires a new framework for intervention and new legislation. This amendment was necessary but the goals of the directive thus amended are not yet truly equal to the seriousness of the problem. Mrs Damião’s report, which has genuinely tried to give workers greater protection, is absolutely remarkable. However, I would like to highlight two points. First, the problem of derogations: the proposal for a directive does not meet our expectations on this point, so we shall vote for Amendment No 21, which we consider to be a minimum; second, the question of responsibility: as shown by the latest judgments passed recently by the French courts, the wording of the text must allow the broadest possible responsibilities to be envisaged as the concepts of project managers or site managers are not specific enough to be completely effective. I would like to end with a clear warning to all those who do not wish to support all the minimum specifications proposed here, and who would therefore be willing to take responsibility for the significant health risks that would affect many workers in Europe. This underestimation of the risks of exposure to asbestos and failure to apply the precautionary principle, a procedure which may well be costly but is less costly than human life, could lead to considerable responsibilities for employers."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph