Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-281"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste shipments2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031118.10.2-281"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-11-18-Speech-2-2822
lpv:speaker	lp:Pilar Ayuso2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by saying that this is a good proposal from the Commission which furthermore is coherent in general terms. I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur on this great work, although I do not agree with some of his points of view, because many of the amendments he has presented are aimed at restricting the free movement of waste. And waste, whether we like it or not, represents goods and must be treated as such, even if we regulate the aspects which may affect the environment. The transport of waste in itself is not an environmental problem. The problem is rather the management of this waste, but this is an issue which does not fall within the scope of the present regulation. The Committee on the Environment has approved the removal of Article 133 as the legal basis for the proposal, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is in favour of this change of legal basis. However, the PPE-DE Group is opposed to the removal of the legal basis relating to commercial policy. I would like therefore to expressly ask the Commissioner to give a clear opinion on this issue. It is particularly important to establish clear rules for the transport of waste by ship and, in this regard, Mr Blokland has presented Amendment 92, which we support, because it resolves the problem of ships which are exported in order to be scrapped. However, Amendments 37 and 44 eliminate the principle of Community self-sufficiency established in the framework directive on waste and establish a single principle of national self-sufficiency. We are not going to support them because they are contrary to the provisions of the framework directive on waste itself. With regard to the amendments which prohibit provisional recycling operations, we believe that they make no sense, particularly in cross-border regions within the European Union. We take an identical view of the amendments which establish criteria to define what must be considered recycling. The definition of these parameters is not the subject of this regulation and, if any of the amendments in this regard are approved, the PPE-DE Group will vote against the report. We call on the Commission, however, to modify the annexes to the framework directive on waste in order to make it clear, once and for all, what recycling is, since we cannot continue to hide behind the judgment of the Court of Justice in accordance with which the Commission interprets its own Directives. Judgments are not law, they are specific cases and, for the moment, all they are doing is contributing to a situation in which the agents involved in the management of waste are carrying out their activities in conditions of legal uncertainty."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph