Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-007"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000203.1.4-007"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I almost feel like saying, “Phew”, now that we have at last come to the second reading on this directive which has given us so much work, and which has clearly also given a great deal of work to the rapporteur, Mr Florenz. I do not consider this directive to be at all satisfactory since it does not answer the real question over what is going to be done with vehicles which have already been abandoned and which, today, can only be removed at local authority expense, i.e. the taxpayers’ expense. The principle of ‘polluter pays’ is not being applied. Vehicles already abandoned have also been abandoned by Community legislation, in that they are not taken into consideration either in the texts on emissions or in this text on end-of-life vehicles. The only merit of this directive is that it looks to the future. It has not, however, been possible to solve the problem of vehicles currently being used but which are already old and which cost far more to recycle. On the other hand, we can be fairly confident for the future because we know the efforts that car manufacturers are prepared to make in order to find (a) materials that are easier to recycle and (b) to set up recycling industries. I should also like to stress the need to maintain a flexible approach to recycling, reuse and incineration, as far as the new particularly light materials are concerned which make it possible to reduce vehicle consumption and therefore emissions. This is a problem of compatibility between our directives on end-of-life vehicles and the former directives, including the one on auto-oil, which we voted on a few years ago. We must therefore congratulate the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on having the wisdom, in order to make things perfectly clear, to reintroduce the clause making an exception of the vintage cars which are part of our industrial and cultural heritage. In conclusion, let me say that this directive is not ambitious enough to solve the problems of present car numbers and it is rather hypocritical with regard to the fate reserved for the wrecks which still clutter our forests, lakes and gardens. Once again, the principle of ‘polluter pays’ is not being applied. The taxpayer is still footing the bill."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph