Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-189"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101122.18.1-189"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-22-Speech-1-1902
lpv:speaker	lp:Anja Weisgerber2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2009-09-16--2013-10-21)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (2009-07-14--2013-10-21)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2009-09-16--2013-10-21)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2013-10-21)3 member; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2013-10-21)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, our heartfelt thanks go to the rapporteur. The directive on electrical and electronic equipment is highly controversial. There were great differences of opinion regarding various aspects. I am therefore pleased that agreement has been reached and at what I regard as the good result of the trialogue negotiations. I would specifically like to reiterate two points. One is the question of the scope. What equipment should the directive actually cover? There is one thing that we must not forget: originally, it was meant to cover domestic appliances – in other words, white goods. The open scope now includes many new product groups, which would also have encompassed technologies for renewable energy. I must point out that this directive actually had a quite different objective. Naturally, much stricter and higher standards of protection need to be applied in the case of domestic appliances than in the case of technologies such as those that are uninstalled, recycled, etc. by specialist personnel. That is why I, in turn, advocated the exemption of renewable energies. I was not in favour of expanding the scope, but then I saw that a majority was moving in that direction. I think it would have been counterproductive to include renewable energy in this directive. It would have resulted in a competitive disadvantage and therefore I think it is the right decision. Then I would like to say something about Annex III: I would have had concerns about including a further 37 substances as priority substances when there is no real justification on health grounds for a future ban on these. I think that would be a panic measure, and that is why I think the decision made is the right one and am pleased about this aspect of the result too."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph