Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.11.3-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to say a word of thanks to the rapporteur for his work on the Directive on paint. It is an important environmental directive. Solvents are one of the main causes of ozone formation, and this has serious consequences, first of all for public health: respiratory diseases and breathing problems can be ascribed to emissions of volatile organic compounds. Vegetation and agricultural crops are also damaged. We are right to now impose limits on solvents, and, as far as my group is concerned, those limits could be tightened up further. The study carried out by the Commission reveals that the environmental gain could be increased further by imposing rather more ambitious limit values. For this reason, our group advocates lowering the limit values in line with the study carried out by the Commission. We by no means agree with the view of the rapporteur and the previous speaker that a reduction in solvents would also entail a drop in quality. Experience in a number of countries has shown that Europe can still have beautiful, good-quality colours even with fewer solvents. Precisely because of the imposition of limits, the paint industry has undergone a period of intensive innovation, the end of which is still a long way off. It is my firm opinion that innovation is also the basis of employment.
The Group of the Party of European Socialists also has an objection of principle, however. The Directive on paint does not say a single word about ‘painters’ disease’: as if there were no one working with paint; as if there were not painters clutching a brush day in, day out. Painters’ disease is a disorder of the nervous system. Exposure to solvents can have serious consequences, such as memory loss, loss of concentration and premature dementia. Some countries have taken measures to protect painters against this disease by permitting solvents and promoting sensible use of paint. These measures have produced good results. Not one single Member State should be deprived of this possibility, either now or in the future. The Directive on paint is a harmonisation directive and will without a doubt be a good thing for the industry, which would like to see clear, unambiguous rules in the internal market. Harmonisation must not be at the expense of social achievements, however. This Directive would result in those Member States who wish to pursue their national policies no longer being able to do so, and that is absolutely unacceptable to my group. We have therefore submitted proposals to right this wrong. Let me put it very clearly: if the internal market means that the trade unions are deprived of the right and the opportunity to champion better working conditions, then my group will say ‘no’.
I have to say that I find it rather surprising that we have to discuss this here at all. For years now, the European Union has been advocating sustainable development. The point of departure for sustainable development is reconciling economic, environmental and social aspects with each other. Since Johannesburg, the whole world agrees on the necessity of sustainable development and on the necessity of expressing this in the form of tangible policy. Sadly, on this, the first – the best – opportunity of bringing together economics, social objectives and environment, social objectives are not being given their due. I call on the rapporteur, therefore, to have another good look at the various amendments that strengthen the social aspects of the Directive, and to support these. I am joined by a number of fellow Members from various groups in finding this internal market Directive too one-sided by half. The veneer of social varnish is really far too thin to offer genuine protection. Much greater stress should be laid on working conditions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples