Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.3.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteur, a number of people will emphasise the importance of this Directive, and they will continue to do so in future. People do not ask me why we are voting on this Directive; many people ask me to do this as quickly and effectively as possible. I myself come from a country where a number of rules on this subject matter are already in place. I should explicitly like to thank the rapporteur for the sterling work he has done and for the excellent improvements he has made to the Commission proposal. The key issue in this connection, which he himself has highlighted, is the obligation to collect all electrical and electronic appliances and to establish higher and more stringent collection objectives before 2006.
The principal goal of this Directive is enshrined in Article 1. First prevention, then re-use, then recycling and, lastly, energy recovery. It is this hierarchy which is not being respected in the Commission proposal, for prevention is being shifted to another directive and re-use of whole appliances is not being recognised. The rapporteur has also relegated a number of aspects to energy recovery instead of recycling. The best way to prevent waste is to change the eco-design of these products. That is why the instrument of individual producer responsibility, financial responsibility, is so crucial. The re-use of whole appliances is important too, not only in terms of the environment, but also from a social point of view. Indeed, it creates more employment opportunities for semi- and unskilled workers, and the products become more accessible at lower prices. Needless to say, this Directive must also guarantee that waste is not exported to third countries, except with a view to re-use, and only if it can be ensured that the same high objectives and standards will be respected in those third countries. Banning hazardous substances is the best preventive measure which we can take. Moreover, this is also important in terms of the health of workers. In fact, the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment forms part of the prevention objective stated in Article 1 of the Directive on discarded electrical and electronic equipment. That is why I was so keen on combining the two Directives.
We have also been familiar with the problem of heavy metals for a long time. Alternatives are available for most of them, whilst the Commission provides for exceptions for a number of them. I do not believe it is up to Parliament promptly to provide for exceptions over the space of a couple of days. There is also the disadvantage that decisions of this kind are sometimes too much inspired by lobbies. Let the Commission go about its business and produce an amended version of the exceptions to heavy metals in two years’ time.
Finally, I should definitely like to mention the discussion on brominated flame retardants. It has become a discussion between believers, such as myself, convinced of the harmful effects on the environment and health, and non-believers. What I find important is that, for many, this discussion has led to a greater appreciation of the harmfulness of these products. A ban in 2006 is impossible. The amendment tabled by my group asks for producers to demonstrate by 2003 that these products are harmless, and I hope that this can be achieved."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples