Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-11-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061211.14.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this compromise bears Parliament’s imprint. This is the second time – the first being when we dealt with the Services Directive – that this House has made the decisive contribution to achieving a solution in an important piece of legislation. It is good that the solution was found here in Parliament.
Nevertheless, it is a compromise – no other solution was possible at the time, and even mediation would have undoubtedly proved very problematic. For this reason, the right course of action is to endorse this compromise – although I do so only with considerable reservations. This REACH regime signifies revolutionary progress with regard to knowledge about approximately 30 000 substances used in trade and industry. This means dramatic progress for health and the environment in Europe, as the President-in-Office rightly pointed out.
Why, however, I ask him, did he fail to say a single word about the fact that we are not only transferring responsibility for substances to enterprises, but also imposing considerable costs on them? Why did he not mention that we are introducing new bureaucratic procedures in Europe, and thus doing the exact opposite of what we proclaim in our soapbox speeches about cutting red tape and achieving the Lisbon objectives? I think that honesty requires us to admit that we want this environmental progress but are imposing considerable costs on the business and industrial community in the process. Time will tell whether, as Mr Verheugen and I hope, the competitiveness of this community can withstand that.
The fact is that, first of all, costs are being mentioned that could have been lower. The Finnish Council Presidency rejected a relaxation of testing requirements for low tonnages. Firstly, these tests are expensive, secondly, they are not very useful, and thirdly, they require enormous amounts of animal testing. It would have been better to revert to the solution found at first reading by Parliament, together with Mr Sacconi – to whom I am obliged for his work.
What comes next? The next step is the implementation of this massive piece of work, this Regulation, which takes effect immediately – that is to say, does not first need to be transposed into national law. A decisive factor in this regard will be the way that the Commission and the Agency deal with those concerned. I would ask the two Commissioners, in particular, namely Messrs Dimas and Verheugen – who are more acutely aware than others that the organisation of REACH tends to put small and medium-sized enterprises at a disadvantage – to work together with SMEs on implementation in a spirit of partnership, and also to ensure that the European economy can withstand this strain."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples