Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-05-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050905.19.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, in this Common Position, many of the amendments adopted by this House at first reading have been taken on board. Improvements include the definition of waste, which has been made clearer, and a more precise description of the financial securities and the inventory of closed sites, along with the rules applicable to them. I can also go along wholeheartedly with what Mr Sjöstedt has just said; good work has been done, with a good cooperative approach, but there is one point, and a crucial one, on which we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats take a different view, and that is where the differential weighting of waste is concerned. We have to take account of the fact that mining waste has a different potential risk, and, as the Common Position does just that, it is right that the Member States should be able to distinguish between hazardous and non-hazardous waste and reduce – or annul – the conditions placed upon non-hazardous, non-inert waste other than that very precisely defined as hazardous and included in Category A. There is a wide spectrum of mining waste, extending from such harmless materials as playsand, salt and topsoil at one end to the toxic cyanide derived from ore mining at the other.
We cannot apply one single measure to everything. Particularly where non-hazardous, non-inert waste is involved, the imposition of excessive burdens on small and medium-sized businesses in the quarrying and earth-moving sector is indefensible. As you, Commissioner, pointed out, a quarry, or a sand or gravel pit cannot be regarded in the same light as a landfill for hazardous waste; all they are doing is meeting the demand for building materials.
I ask that the amendment to Article 3 be adopted. It is intended to extend the scope of this directive to the burning of chalk. People are willing to buy and use the waste products resulting from this, of which chalk dust is one; they are not hazardous and the Landfill Directive is not meant to apply to them. This would avoid unnecessary costs associated with landfill. In all that we do, we must not lose sight of our objective, which is to keep people and the environment safe with the minimum of red tape and expense. This is intended to achieve that end."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples