Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.1.4-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for an interesting debate in which many important arguments have been presented. Would you be so kind as to bear with me for a few minutes. Allow me briefly to comment on some of the assumptions and principles behind the present directive. Allow me also to begin by commenting on and responding to a couple of the most important arguments in this debate.
A total of 48 amendments have been tabled. The Commission can adopt 10 amendments in their entirety. Three amendments can be partially approved, and one can be approved in principle. Certain amendments concern improvements to the Commission’s proposal which we adopted as early as at the first reading or else they reintroduce into the directive such parts of the original proposal as the Council has removed. This applies to Amendment No 5, excluding section 1; 8 and 9, section 1; 10 and 12, section 3; 15, 16, 20, 22, 24 and 25. These amendments can all be approved. Amendments Nos 6 and 21 are new; the Commission can approve these. The Commission can also approve Amendment No 26 with certain editorial changes. I want to emphasise that a number of the other amendments affecting the proposal’s basic components involve a considerable watering-down of the level of environmental protection aimed at by the common position. They cannot therefore be approved.
Parliament has traditionally made a major contribution to strengthening environmental legislation in Europe. It would amaze and depress me if it were not to do so today. I am very concerned about certain amendments from Parliament which bring the absolutely basic pillars of the present proposal into question. These concern, for example, the phasing-out of heavy metals, manufacturer’s liability and the requirement for recycling. I want to deal with these amendments on a group-by-group basis.
Amendments Nos 4, 11, 12, 13, 28, 30, 32, 37, 42 and 48 concern the phasing-out of heavy metals. Amendment No 12 involves a delay of at least ten years in bringing the provision into force. Amendments Nos 13, 28, 32, 37, 42 and 48 involve introducing unnecessary conditions and exceptions. This would mean that the process of replacing dangerous substances would be implemented more slowly. Amendments Nos 4, 11 and 30 mean that heavy metals have to be separated from the waste before recycling. The Commission considers that the type of phasing-out proposed in the common position is easier to apply from a technical point of view.
Amendments Nos 17, 18, 27, 34, 36, 38, 44 and 45 relate to the manufacturer’s liability. The compromise reached by the Council is fair but fragile. The Commission does not consider that the amendments would improve the balance without, at the same time, creating tensions.
I regret the confusion which arose recently due to internal documents from the Commission being wrongly used, so creating uncertainty about the Commission’s attitude to the issue. I want to emphasise that, as early as 1997, the Commission proposed a special clause concerning manufacturer’s liability and that the Commission entirely supports the common position. This does not impose disproportionate costs upon manufacturers. Far from it.
Amendments Nos 39, 40, 46 and 47 concern quantified objectives. The high level of protection aimed at by the common position would be very much undermined if the recycling objective for the year 2006 were removed. These amendments would also make the objectives awkward to deal with and difficult to supervise.
Allow me also – listen carefully to what I am saying now, because I have heard this reiterated in the debate – allow me to comment on the issue of vintage and “cherished” cars as mentioned in Amendments Nos 3, 7, and 9, section 2, and 35. Such vehicles are not covered by the definition of waste and are not therefore included under the directive. So, whatever has been stated in this regard, vintage cars and motorcycles are not included under the directive.
We do not consider that Amendments Nos 2 and 14 add anything to the directive. Amendment No 23 involves the Commission’s having to adopt quality standards for reusable components. This is not covered by the directive. An ad hoc directive should therefore be demanded from the European Parliament and the Council. Amendments Nos 29, 31 and 41 water down the requirements concerning the dismantling of vehicles. There is a danger of Amendments Nos 31 and 41 reducing the chances of recycling plastic, tyres and glass.
Finally, the Commission cannot approve Amendments Nos 1 and 33 for reasons to do with legal clarity; nor Amendment No 19, which the Commission considers to be unnecessary at this stage. Furthermore, Amendment No 43 does not fall within the directive’s area of applicability.
First of all, I think I should repeat some of the basic facts which Mr Florenz and others have already mentioned. What we are discussing here is the fact that close on ten million cars are scrapped every year in the European Union, resulting in approximately as many millions of tons of waste. This means that almost ten million tons of waste are created by these cars, and approximately seven per cent of the latter are abandoned out in the open. Moreover, they constitute environmentally hazardous substances of the worst kind. Approximately ten per cent of lead production is to be found in cars, but also cadmium, chromium, mercury and other very dangerous substances. This is something you already know, but I would nonetheless also repeat it for the benefit of those who are listening. Cars are one of the fastest growing sources of waste we have in Europe. We know that waste from cars exists and we know how we ought to be dealing with it, and there is no excuse for not taking action.
The present directive has three aims. First of all, we want to stop heavy metals from being used in the manufacture of new cars. Secondly, we want to establish the fact that the manufacturer is liable. We can no longer take care of these matters at the end of a product’s life-cycle. Instead, we should avoid creating so much waste. We should see to it that we recycle as much as possible of the various contents of a product. Thirdly, we wish to achieve the recycling objectives specified in the present directive. These are the three most important aims of the directive. This is, of course, because it is a waste of resources for us not to ensure that materials in cars are recycled. It is, above all, the manufacturer’s resources we are wasting if we do not get to grips with a car’s life-cycle.
Two important questions have arisen in this regard. Yes, there are in fact more than two questions, but I want to mention just two of the most important. First of all: who should pay? And secondly: are we reducing the European car industry’s competitiveness by means of the present proposal?
The first question, then, is about who should pay. The directive states that the polluter should pay and that the cost is to be borne mainly by the manufacturer in accordance with the principles to be found in the EU’s treaty concerning the manufacturer’s liability. It is nonetheless clear that the cost will be borne jointly by manufacturers and consumers. We have calculated that the cost of recycling cars does not constitute more than one per cent of the price of a new car. Do we imagine, then, that the cost would disappear if we were not to adopt this directive? No. Clearly, we shall all have to bear the cost of serious damage to the environment, but it will be very much greater. Moreover, the cost will have to be borne in the future. The cost will not therefore disappear, but now we are clarifying whose liability it is and how the cost is to be distributed. Are we therefore talking about a car industry in crisis? Is it an unprofitable industry which we are discussing and which we really have to help by not imposing more taxes upon it? Is it the case that the car industry definitely cannot afford these? Is it the case that the motives behind the proposed measures are in actual fact concerned with reducing the competitiveness of the European car industry? No, of course not. It is quite the opposite. Do you believe that consumer demand for environmentally friendly cars and more fuel-efficient cars is going to decline in the future? What kind of requirements do you think our children and grandchildren and future legislators are going to make of cars? Naturally, that they should be environmentally friendly, that they should be recyclable, that they should be fuel-efficient and that they should not pollute our environment. It is, of course, only in this way that we can create a future for the car industry.
We must create forms of motive power which are not damaging to health and which are of such a kind that we can deal with the relevant waste, recycle materials and compete by means of environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient cars. The fact that we have a European car industry which has already made great strides more than properly compensates for the fact that there are, in fact, a good many cars on European roads for which they must take responsibility. The cost is not insurmountable; nor is the task an impossible one. If we develop motive power of the kind I have described, I am quite certain that market forces and commercial interests in the car industry will ensure that mechanisms develop for dealing with both the cost and the workload. These will consist of everything from insurance to sensible and effective scrapping and recycling systems. The industry itself will ensure that these systems are introduced in Europe. They will not represent an insurmountable cost for the European car industry. They will instead help industry to be in the vanguard of eventually producing environmentally friendly and more fuel-efficient cars. We must do this for the sake of the environment. The costs will not disappear. Nor will the waste disappear. But, otherwise, we must all of us, as taxpayers or citizens, foot the bill. What is more, the costs will be higher the longer we wait before taking action.
That is what I should like to say by way of introduction. I also want to comment on the question as to whether there is to be any retroactive legislation. If we assume that, on average, a car has a life of eleven years, do Members, indeed does anyone, believe that we should wait for eleven years before we get to grips with this problem? Do you think that, when we legislate about chemicals, we should say that we are ignoring those chemicals which are already on the market and that we are legislating only for what is to be produced in the future? Clearly, we must consider the problem which exists here and now and the challenge presented by the existing range of cars. It is still not an insurmountable problem. We can deal with it. We already have an infrastructure. We have what we require in order to deal with end-of-life cars.
I naturally hope that the result of today’s vote will be a good one. If I have not already done so, I would also thank Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz for the hard work he has put into this proposal on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In fact, it is in many respects pioneering work when it comes to re-use and manufacturer’s liability. I believe it will have very positive and noticeable effects on the environment. We cannot continue to close our eyes to these matters. As I have said, we have both the knowledge and the resources to cope with these issues.
After the first reading in the European Parliament in 1999, the Commission’s proposal ended up in an awkward political situation in the Council. However, we obtained a well-balanced common position in July during the Finnish Presidency. Now, we must ensure that the present legislative process is concluded successfully."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples