During an initial employment and social affairs committee debate on Tuesday 28 November, the determination of Claude Rolin MEP (EPP, Belgium), rapporteur on the second revision of the directive on protecting workers against mutagenic and carcinogenic agents and introducing a value limit on gas exhausts from diesel engines, managed to obtain the attention of the MEP’s colleagues.
It should be recalled that the MEP is seeking to introduce a value limit for gas exhausts from diesel engines of 0.05 mg/m, calculated on the basis of the carbon element, as reported in EUROPE earlier this month (see EUROPE 11908). The proposal was debated by the MEPs, with reservations expressed by MEPs on the centre-right.
Marita Ulvskog (S&D, Sweden) was the rapporteur on the first revision of the directive (see EUROPE 11735) and welcomed the proposal. She added that she wanted to add value limits for nitric oxide (NOx), which has been an on-going saga since the beginning of the ‘Dieselgate’ scandal (see EUROPE 11761).
The proposal was also warmly welcomed by Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), who is also a member of the former EMIS Commission of enquiry into the emissions scandal, before she expressed her irritation with the inertia displayed by the European Commission on the subject. Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL) also supported Mr Rolin’s proposal.
On the other hand, the proposal only received rather lukewarm support from Anthea McIntyre (ECR, United Kingdom), whose ideas were reported by Helga Stevens (Belgium), who shared her concern about attempts to establish a value limit for diesel vapours. The latter considered that they needed to continue this same procedure for other substances. Enrique Calvet Chambon (ALDE, Spain), did not directly mention diesel vapours but did indicate that they should not set out value limits “wily-nily” and that he wanted to meet all the relevant stakeholders before deciding on a position. Finally, Joëlle Mélin (ENL, France) said that she was astonished that they were only talking about diesel vapours and not all the substances, given that cancer often has multiple origins.
Commission response. The European Commission defended its position and explained that it would follow a robust procedure in several different stages, as well as a consultation with social partners, followed by a scientific consultation, tripartite dialogue and, finally, a legal analysis. It also explained that it was working with “batches” of substances and that they needed to avoid getting rid of certain circumstances because these were going to be replaced by the companies afterwards. The scientific council did indeed propose value limits but only for specific engines (such as between older generation diesel engines and new generation engines), which the Commission explained would not be applied in the directive. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)