Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-011"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:End-of-life vehicles2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000203.1.4-011"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-03-Speech-4-0122
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	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) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the waste from end-of-life vehicles is one of our really major environmental problems in terms both of the quantity of waste and of emissions of environmentally hazardous substances. We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left therefore want as comprehensive and consistent a set of regulations as is humanly possible in this area. With this directive, we have the chance to take a big step forward, but this presupposes that the Council’s position is not torn to shreds and weakened in Parliament’s reading of it. If they were adopted, many of the amendments which have been tabled would considerably weaken the directive. This applies, above all, to amendments from the Group of the European People’s Party but also, unfortunately, to some of the amendments from Mr Lange, as I see it. It is easy to see that the car industry in certain countries, for example in Germany, went in for some pretty tough lobbying before the present directive was adopted. For ourselves, it is crucial that the following principles should apply. The polluter should pay. This means that it is the manufacturer which should take full responsibility, financial as well as otherwise, for recycling vehicles. There must be rules governing existing vehicles too. Where this aspect is concerned, we cannot accept any weakening of the Council’s position regarding the date from which the regulations are to come into force. There should be no falling-off in the percentages concerned or in the requirements for recycling vehicles from particular years, and it is important to limit the use of dangerous substances such as lead. We shall vote against any amendments which run counter to these considerations. If those amendments were adopted which would considerably weaken the directive, this would be very detrimental, not only from an environmental point of view but also for the European Parliament’s credibility on environmental issues. Reference was made earlier on in the debate to the fact that some thought should be given to the millions of people who work in the car industry in various countries and to those countries which have large car industries, for example my own country, Sweden. I was myself a car worker before I was elected. I believe I am one of the few members of this Parliament to have stood beside a production line and assembled cars. I think that very tough demands should be made of the car industry. These would, of course, be to the advantage of modern, progressive car manufacturers who think in environmentally friendly terms. It is precisely this type of car industry which we should be encouraging in the European Union."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph