Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.11.2-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The rapporteur has already emphasised the importance of the directive, which, like many in this Parliament, I support. I also endorse his important additions to the directive, such as the duty to collect all electronic waste, the higher compulsory collection target of 6 kg which, as the rapporteur has already stated, is very realistic, and thirdly, the very important compromise which we struck with the different groups at first reading in this Chamber and which we must continue to support, namely individual producer responsibility.
Without revisiting these three points at great length, we can, in my view, ensure in this way that less new waste is produced, which is, therefore, the best prevention possible, that waste will become more environmentally-friendly and that it will be easier to recycle. I therefore believe that these points are essential to this Parliament, and I would like to pre-empt events slightly and inform the Council that we will be able to back these three principles when we leave for conciliation – hopefully unanimously, or at any rate jointly.
Nevertheless, there are a few points on which I fail to agree with the rapporteur. Something which he himself dwelled on for quite a while was the question as to how far this individual responsibility extends and who is now responsible for paying for collection and the collection points. If we do not address this, then it will be the local authority that will be picking up the tab, as Mrs Jackson said. I must say, I am not in favour of this. If we wish to implement the principle of responsibility and of ‘the polluter pays’ to the letter, then we will need to ensure that manufacturers bear their share of these costs. Consequently, we must at any rate ensure that Amendment No 67 of the rapporteur is not supported on this score.
Waste prevention also means that products must be re-used as long as possible. I certainly agree that certain refrigerators which use up far too much energy should not be re-used, but since there is now a tendency for these products to have increasingly shorter life spans, we can ensure that products that are being made now can be re-used in future. This is also an essential social objective, which I want to support 100%, and I therefore ask you to back Amendment No 73.
As far as the consumer is concerned, it is also important to us that he should be informed of the dangerous substances currently present in products, such as mercury, lead and such like.
Allow me to finish off on a controversial note, namely the topic of light bulbs. I should like to broach this subject again, mainly because it is an aspect that has been lobbied heavily for, and I sometimes have the feeling that the more we lobby in this Parliament, the more productive it seems. In my view, it is too ridiculous for words that we should keep light bulbs outside the scope of the directive, while many other, often less polluting products
included.
Mr President, on a final note, I should like to support you and the rapporteur in the fact that we are holding this debate far too late in the evening, and that attendance is disappointingly low. A fellow MEP said to me today: surely this is sheer madness. It is undoubtedly the most important directive we are bringing to the vote this week in the plenary session, and yet we are discussing it at an impossible hour."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples