Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-07-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090507.7.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our debate today is particularly important, as we know, for two reasons: firstly, because we are talking about one of the substances that has caused most harm and deaths among citizens and workers at the plants where it is used and produced, namely asbestos. Secondly, because we are debating one of the first measures to implement the extremely significant regulation that has, in a way, marked this parliamentary term, that is to say REACH.
With the question we have asked and the draft resolution we will vote on today – let me say straight away to reassure the Commission and Vice-President Tajani who is here on its behalf – we are not opposing the draft implementing regulation that the Commission has adopted on this issue. I refer to Point 2.6 of this draft measure, which provides the missing Annex 17 that should have reproduced the provisions of Annex 1 of Directive 76 – the directive on dangerous substances, which will be replaced by REACH, and therefore repealed – this Point 2.6 extends the ban on the placing on the market of asbestos fibres and products containing asbestos.
The truth is that in this same decision, however, there are exemptions, to be granted by certain Member States – for the record, there are four of them – who may keep articles marketed before 2005 on the market, as well as diaphragms containing chrysotile asbestos used in production at existing electrolysis plants. The possibility of using these exemptions is of course subject to the Member States’ compliance with all the Community rules on worker protection, effectively meaning that these plants, coming to the end of their lifecycle, do not generate problems for workers’ health.
There is a reason why we are not opposed to this: these exemptions do exist, but we must acknowledge that the Commission has provided a mechanism, so to speak, by which these exemptions will in time – in 2012, to be exact – be reviewed through reports to be made by the Member States concerned, on the basis of which the European Chemicals Agency will prepare a dossier providing for the gradual withdrawal of the exemptions.
Thus we are not opposed, but certainly with our resolution we want to give you in the Commission a strong impetus to be a bit bolder, to go a bit further and a bit faster, shall we say, above all bearing in mind that there are already alternatives to chrysotile asbestos, at least for high-voltage plants, and in fact the companies concerned have launched promising research programmes to find alternatives for low-voltage plants also.
There are two aims to our stimulus and our input. The first is to set ourselves a date, a deadline – we are proposing 2015 – by which to lift these exemptions, launching a real withdrawal strategy, including measures that will then be required to demolish these plants in safety and also ensure safety as regards export.
Lastly, the second thing we are asking the Commission – and we would appreciate a reply on this, too – concerns a point that is critical for us, namely the fact that a Community list of articles containing asbestos for which an exemption applies has not yet been adopted, and so we are of course asking for this as soon as possible, by 2012, to enable better control and a better understanding."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples