Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-04-Speech-1-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050704.18.1-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Professor Trakatellis, who, in my opinion, has shown a unique ability and a unique willingness to bring about compromises. I should also like to thank the Council, which has also exerted itself in some really basic areas, thereby showing that it takes Parliament seriously. It deserves to be thanked.
Particular account should be taken of the fact that it is more than five years since this legislation was embarked upon. Almost six years have had to go by before we have been able to get such important legislation affecting our children’s health adopted. We are concerned here with carcinogenic substances and endocrine disrupters. This is an issue that affects everyone in Europe every single day and is very much on people’s minds, and yet such a long period has elapsed. I am therefore all the happier about the result that we have obtained and that is now before us. It is a genuinely positive result. Firstly, the three most dangerous substances are completely banned, and that is of course a big step. Secondly, we are to have the three second—most dangerous substances banned in all forms of toys that can be put in the mouth, and that is of course at the heart of this proposal.
There are also other positive points, to which Professor Trakatellis has already referred and which I shall not repeat. I would, however, emphasise that this is a basic and significant example of legislation on which Parliament has stuck to its guns. We have not allowed ourselves to be influenced by the huge lobbying effort from industry. Industry has not been allowed to force through its position. We have maintained our stance that, in such an important area, it must be the precautionary principle that applies. Naturally, a sense of proportion must also be kept, but it is our children’s health that is at issue here, so the precautionary principle must be applied.
On quite a few occasions during the negotiations, I could not help but wonder if I was hearing correctly – indeed, I almost had to pinch myself to be sure – when draftsmen – albeit only a few of them – spoke against this proposal. Our children’s health was at stake, yet people were unwilling to apply the precautionary principle. I also see that a number of amendments, to which Mr Verheugen referred, were tabled. I presume that there was a translation error, as I had understood them to be parts of the compromise that people were unable to support. These amendments are not part of the compromise. The compromise does not include the parts to be found in Amendments 22 and 23."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples