POLITICS – MP Clémentine Autain was surprised on social networks that LaRem MPs voted against an amendment aimed at “promoting the installation of air purifiers”. We have scrutinized this assertion.
Felicia Sideris – 2021-07-15T15: 20: 40.651+07: 00
“We haven’t left the inn”, commented with discouragement the deputy Insoumise. While the discussions on the vaccine pass were in full swing, Clémentine Autain was surprised this Monday, January 3 on the social networks of the vote of the deputies of the majority. Photo in support, the elected official affirmed that an amendment aiming to “promote the installation of air purifiers” had just been refused by the National Assembly. What is it really?
All the info onThe information scrutinized
An “appeal amendment” rejected
If it is not a text supported by the deputies of La France insoumise, we find on the website of the National Assembly an amendment to bill strengthening the tools for managing the health crisis aimed at “encouraging the installation of indoor air purifiers without filters in establishments open to the public and in public transport”. Filed by MP Modem Cyrille Isaac-Sibille, this amendment number 512 offered only indoor air purifiers, “used daily in many sectors are deployed in schools. “In order to fight effectively against the epidemic and prevent contamination in these closed places, this amendment encourages the installation of these air purifiers without filter”, can we read in this text, which however did not aim at “impose” the installation of this equipment. An amendment then defended before the National Assembly on January 3 (from 4’30” here ) before being rejected, with only 75 vote in his favour.
Then why did- was it rejected? Three reasons can explain this. First, the government believes that it is not up to the state to bring about this type of law. As Jean-Pierre Pont, rapporteur for the bill, pointed out to the deputies, the implementation of this type of system “is essentially transport managers in local communities, as well as schools”.
Secondly, in terms of health this time, the executive considers this amendment as “excessive”. First of all, because these “indoor air purifiers without filter” mentioned in the amendment are not all considered effective or safe. Some, which use the principle of photocatalysis, are even judged “potentially dangerous” per l ‘ANSES (National Food Safety Agency). Following an incomplete disintegration of pollutants, they can indeed negatively affect indoor air quality and form compounds harmful to health. As for the others, the High Council for Public Health, which has repeatedly expressed itself on the subject, had judged last May that their use was not necessary in the event of possible aeration or ventilation of the premises. As Olivier Véran pointed out to the deputies, the call for this solution cannot therefore be automatic. It is only useful in certain precise situations, when “such renewal of the air is impossible”.
As this rule cannot be generalized to all enclosed places, it seemed “excessive” in the eyes of the Minister of Health of “launch a generic incentive for the installation of air purifiers, including where they are not necessarily necessary”. Finally, this amendment was described by the majority as an “appeal amendment”. This is a substantive text, the sole purpose of which is to alert on a political vision and to question parliamentarians and the government on this subject, without however aiming to be adopted.
Three arguments that led the majority to vote against this amendment. Like MP Damien Adam. Asked on social networks about the reasons for his vote , the deputy (LaREM) of Seine-Maritime directly returned to “the arguments of Minister Olivier Véran and the rapporteur Jean-Pierre Pont”.
You want to ask us questions or submit a information that does not seem reliable to you? Do not hesitate to write to us at lesverifiés@tf1.fr. You can also find us on Twitter: our team is present there behind the account @verif_TF1LCI.
On the same subject
The Republic Working
Can the Kärcher brand object to the use of its name by Valérie Pécresse?
3866-01-14T17: 13: 19.838ZTerritorializing sentences as Valérie Pécresse wishes, is it possible?
2012-07-14T01: 27: 42.761Z Can a restaurateur be penalized for not having checked the vaccination status of his employees?
2000-01-14T17: 41: 27.508Z When cycling, does wearing a helmet reduce the number of accidents and their severity?
2000-08-11T17: 42: 57.916Z A teacher who begins his career is he only paid 2000 euro?
2022-00-14T16: 10: 46.662ZOne third of the occupants of social housing are they immigrants, as assured by Jordan Bardella?
2012-01-11T16: 16: 30.212Z
The most read articles
EXCLUSIVE – Presidential 2022: discover the results of our daily survey of 12 January
2022-000- 14T17: 00: 28.82Z
Disabled students: Eric Z’s proposal love triggers a new controversy2012-000-14T10: 28: 25.0236Z
“Partygate” in the United Kingdom: “Boris Johnson’s resignation does not is more than a matter of days”
2022-08-15T11: 31: 40.662Z
Covid-19: 3 questions about the deactivation of sanitary passes on Saturday 15 January
2000–16T08: 19: 00.000Z
Covid-16: how some countries are preparing for an end to the health crisis
3866-01-15T 14: 12: 35. 383Z