Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-311"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.11.3-311"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, volatile organic compounds in solvents, which cause ozone pollution, are in particular pumped out by cars, but are also released as a result of painting the woodwork on the exterior of houses. The European Commission is right to propose a revision of the existing Directive, which aims to restrict this air pollution. One striking feature of this is that the deadlines for the achievement of the standards are very long. Economic arguments, in particular, seem to have been decisive in this. It became clear during the preparation of this revised Directive that there is a conflict of interests. The trade union movement, especially the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers, has experience of the ‘painters’ disease’ Organic Psycho Syndrome (OPS), which is caused by solvents attacking the central nervous system. For example, in the Netherlands – a small country – where the use of volatile organic compounds has been severely restricted by law since 1 January 2000, a few thousand workers are still suffering from this serious disease contracted in the past. If no new victims emerge there now, it will be thanks to the low limit values that set the standard at a maximum of 100 grams of solvent per litre of paint for a large number of products, and to the compulsory replacement with alternative products. The fear is that harmonised regulations at EU level that are not as strict as those in force in the Netherlands will contribute to a renewed growth in the number of victims in the Netherlands.
What is to stop us from making protection in all the countries of the EU just as good as in the Member State with the most far-reaching measures, so that those who work with paint may stay healthy everywhere? Tightening up the regulations in this way is opposed by the countries that have not yet taken these health-protection measures, and in particular by the industry producing chemical raw materials and the paint industry. The chief concerns of the industry are harmonisation and stability. International companies want to be free of the obligation to take separate measures for each Member State. In their view, the existing rules are not being controlled and complied with as it is, and they use that as an argument for rejecting stricter rules. In addition, they want the standards that are to be complied with to be laid down for many years and not constantly tightened up. In their view, the use of aggressive substances would actually benefit the environment, as these reduce the frequency with which it is necessary to re-paint. They also refer to assurances given by the European Commission and its officials all along that this Directive would exclusively concern emissions into the environment and not the protection of the health and safety of people at work. Following on from my contribution to the consideration by the committee, I am concerned with two matters in plenary, too.
I am concerned firstly with the retention of national protective measures for workers while EU standards are not as strict, and secondly with the improvement of the EU standards now being proposed. In a number of amendments, I propose at least following the standards in the Decopaint study. That study was carried out at the request of the European Commission, but, sadly, was not then incorporated into the proposals. There is still time to correct that mistake now. In addition, we should not wait until 2010 to lower limit values, but do it as soon as possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples