Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.11.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the proposal the Commission has presented to us is quite simply intended to establish time limits for compliance by the new Member States with the objectives of the directive we approved last year.
During the negotiation of the modification of the directive on packaging, for which Mrs Corbey was also rapporteur, the problem was raised of what to do about the new Member States not included in the objectives of the directive.
The new Member States negotiated transitional periods with the Commission of differing lengths according to their capacity to comply with these objectives or not, because, in reality, for many countries, these objectives are very ambitious and not at all easy to comply with. These time limits were laid down in Recital 6 of the modification of the directive carried out last year.
I agree with the report as approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and in Amendment No 3 the rapporteur has replaced the date proposed by the Commission, a single date for everybody, which, as you are well aware, is 2012, as negotiated by the Member States. They may not agree but, in reality, each Member State has its own specific characteristics, its own problems, and is perfectly aware of when it can achieve these objectives or not. There is no point in producing legislation which is impossible to comply with. This proposal was intended to include the Member States in the objectives of the directive on packaging.
For this reason, I am opposed to the new Amendment No 4, which is intended to introduce a new recital on the system of reuse, which gives the impression that the intention is to take advantage of one thing in order to impose another. This is not the time. I am not against systems of reuse, and nobody can be against it. But this is not the place to put this amendment. It is neither the time nor the place, particularly given that Article 5 of this directive already allows the Member States to promote methods of reuse provided that they conform to the Treaties.
I believe it is premature to open up this debate when in June the Commission will have to present Parliament and the Council with a report on the application of the directive, its impact on the environment and the operation of the external market. Amongst other issues, this report will have to deal with promoting reuse and, in particular, compare the costs and benefits of reuse and recycling.
So far no environmental or economic reason has been found to favour one type of packaging over another. The most important thing I wanted to say is that I am against Amendment No 4."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples