Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.1.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is agreement that we must give some thought as to how we in Europe will properly deal with end-of-life cars, although in this instance the Council has not provided a model for a suitable European environment policy. It is disgraceful the way in which the German Presidency handled this matter. Firstly, Herr Trittin, the Environment Minister, was not in tune with his colleagues in the Cabinet, then Chancellor Schröder blundered in like a bull in a china shop, having no expert knowledge of this process. Mind you, even the Resolution of the Finnish Council Presidency in June was not the best result that could have been done achieved. There are certain weaknesses, the greatest of which, in my opinion, is that not enough consideration is being given to the situation of small businesses; after all, the car industry is more than just large companies. It is in the area of supply that small business plays an important role and we must not fail to also take account of the interests of those employed in small and medium-sized enterprises. For there are considerably more than two million people employed in this sector.
The plight of small businesses is also addressed by numerous amendments from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and also the amendments in question from our group to Article 5 concerning costs. The common position is also no great shakes from an environmental viewpoint. It fails to take in the bigger picture and when my fellow delegate from the Greens says that this is the first time that the European Parliament has toned down a common position, I really must object, because quite simply, it is not environmentally meaningful to restrict the use of modern, low-consumption cars such as the 3-litre car, which contain a great deal of plastic, by means of rigid, high recycling quotas! Consequently, we must support an amendment which at least permits exceptions in the case of particularly economical cars. The objections of the industry in this matter are certainly not without foundation. However, the arguments of the plastics and car industries would be more persuasive if a commitment were to be given to reducing CO2 levels in Europe in other sectors besides these."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples