Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-308"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.11.2-308"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I wish to join with the others in complimenting all involved, particularly on bringing this through conciliation successfully. In particular, I congratulate my colleague, the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on the passion he has sustained on this issue, despite all the various problems he faced from industry and the different political groups in this House, not least his own group. I thank him for his commitment and belief in both these directives.
The restriction on the use of certain hazardous substances, on the one hand, and the prevention of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the other is what we are talking about here in the two directives before us. Colleagues have indicated the rate at which WEEE is growing. It is interesting to know that it will grow three times faster than the average municipal waste by 2010 – quite a frightening concept. Because of its hazardous content, electrical and electronic equipment causes environmental problems during the waste management process if it is not properly treated, sorted, separated, recycled, reused, contaminants removed etc. We can insist on improved product design, and that will facilitate recycling and the disposal of products at the end of their life. It is against this background that the two directives must be reviewed.
I noticed that at conciliation the views concerned were unanimous – and that includes views from Ireland, Portugal, Greece and other countries whose waste network and recycling systems are much less developed than in some countries in the EU. I hope our officials, ministers and others who agreed to the targets and timetables did so realistically, because we should not commit ourselves to something we cannot deliver. If it is only a matter of time before countries are dragged before the ECJ for non-compliance or non-transposition of a particular regulation, this brings into disrepute legislation passed through this House. I am glad, but slightly concerned, that they were unanimous because they might not be taking seriously what is being required of them. Knowing the state of 'underdevelopment' of recycling and waste management in my own country, Ireland, for example, I sincerely hope they mean what they say in agreeing to this directive and I fully support the fact that they have done so.
In relation to the WEEE directive, one of the issues that caused most angst among industry was the handling of historic waste: who would pay for it and so on. It is still a concern, as I understand from industry, even though they have accepted – perhaps somewhat reluctantly – that the only way to pay is collectively and fairly. Each manufacturer of new products should cover its own costs, and the collection and treatment of all new products can be done collectively. The manufacturers will have to provide a guarantee prior to placing their products on the market to ensure the financing of subsequent disposal of the products – through insurance perhaps or a blocked bank account. In the event of the disappearance from the market of a manufacturer, such a guarantee would ensure that the costs do not have to be borne by society or by other manufacturers.
Finally, we should be realistic in terms of targets for and timetabling of the abolition of the dangerous substances, in particular lead and lead solder, and the concerns that have been expressed by industry. Let us be sure that technologically we are able to replace with a safer product, as far as the environment is concerned, what we are about to ban."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples