Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.1.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I think we need this directive. Firstly, because it clearly stipulates the environmental objectives. Secondly, because it can promote recycling, which is important. Thirdly, because it sets out a clear procedure to combat pollution caused by heavy metals. This is also an important point. The directive affords a European framework, also to Member States who already have systems in place and who wish to continue to use these.
So, first of all, we need to keep the recycling percentages at their present level. This will, of course, provide the necessary incentive for technological innovation and for identifying ways of dealing with materials that we do not as yet know how to dispose of.
Secondly, we need to retain the details as they are included in the common position. As from 2006, therefore, all vehicles should be handed in at no cost to their last owners. Needless to say, this is most definitely an essential point which should not be changed in any way.
Is this too much of a burden? There is, however, one thing we should not overlook. The directive applies to complete cars, that is to say cars with none of the essential components missing. According to the experts, few of these complete cars are of no value. After all, recycling and the re-use of components form part of a sector which is not necessarily loss-making. Quite the reverse, in fact. At present, there is a whole raft of companies which make a living out of them, and a decent one at that. This directive encourages the whole of this sector. It is a sector which comprises small and medium-sized businesses. Since, in this case, transport costs are high, a system will have to be introduced which will need to be very much decentralised, because transporting an end-of-life vehicle over a distance of more than 100 km is not a profitable activity.
I think it is a good thing that this directive does not need to apply to historic vehicles, and I think we ought to add this provision to it. I think, therefore, that vintage cars ought to be exempt.
Also, it is a good thing that we should clearly lay the burden of responsibility with the manufacturer. That is a basic principle which we must uphold. As manufacturers are responsible for the design, they can give a great deal of consideration to the environment at the conception phase. We must also insist that the cost is borne wholly or largely by the manufacturer, as stipulated in the common position. I find this a well-balanced formula which does not preclude a number of other things. I think we need to retain it.
This is why our group will remain as close to the common position as possible and will not alter its essence. After all, we are all aware how difficult it was within the Council to bring this common position about, and that it was a very difficult balancing act to reach this common position. In my opinion, we should not jeopardise that common position, because it is a directive which we desperately need for environmental reasons. I would ask you to support this common position. Our group will, at any rate, do this as far as possible – for environmental reasons and because we have this directive which is well-balanced and encompasses a whole range of issues and difficulties including, for example, the way in which the costs are to be distributed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples