Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-07-Speech-4-077"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000907.2.4-077"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". The compromise that came out of the conciliation procedure, the final legislative stage, is the result of hard negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Far from being satisfactory, I see it merely as a first step, although it does, in some respects, go in the right direction. While I welcome the figured objectives that have been set (by 2006, 85% of the weight of vehicles produced after 1980 is to be recycled, re-used or recovered, and 95% by 2015) I regret the hypocrisy of some of the provisions advocated by the PSE and supported by the Socialist and Social-democratic Governments. The Council of Ministers has, in fact, remained inflexible about allowing the owner to return his end-of-life vehicle free of charge. That is a demagogic provision. It may well be based on goodwill towards the consumer, but it is totally unrealistic. In fact, the directive stipulates that the cost of treatment will be borne entirely by the producers. The latter are bound to pass on at least part of these costs to the purchase price of new vehicles. So, far from encouraging the purchase of a new generation of less polluting vehicles, this measure is a hidden bonus for those who own the most polluting old vehicles. The Council of Ministers finally responded to the wishes of the MEPs, who had been calling since the first reading, for vintage vehicles to be expressly excluded from the scope of this directive. The amendment I tabled and supported has, in fact, been fully incorporated into the final text. In wider terms, this directive is not ambitious enough. For example, it says nothing at all about the problem of the dumped cars that disfigure the landscape. Despite the polluter-pays principle, it is the taxpayers who bear the cost of removing them. It is a pity that neither this directive nor the directive on the disposal of waste has concerned itself with this problem, which, after all, has disastrous environmental effects in much of Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph