Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.11.2-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I fully support the idea behind this directive but there are certain tests to which we should submit the proposal and our amendments.
Firstly, would existing successful arrangements for dealing with electronic waste be allowed to continue? I believe there is a danger that they would not. Parliament's amendments emphasise individual producer responsibility so that none can escape the net of the directive, but this means changing existing collective responsibility systems. The rapporteur has dealt with this by allowing for such collective responsibility agreements to continue for 10 years after the entry into force of the directive. That will create two systems in one EU and lead to distortions of competition. I look forward, with some trepidation, to the problems which we will encounter at conciliation on that one.
Secondly, are we legislating with open eyes about the cost of what is proposed? No, we are not. The cost impact assessment in the original proposal is inevitably inadequate. The British Government has done a cost-impact assessment, learning from the fridges debacle. It has estimated a possible annual implementation cost for this directive at EUR 500 million, with a maximum save in landfill costs of approximately EUR 15 million a year. Do we have similar estimates from other countries? No, we do not. Will they legislate without counting the cost? Yes, in all probability they will.
Thirdly, should we consider the interests of small businesses? Clearly the rapporteur thinks not because he has deleted in Amendment No 15 the possibility of giving micro-companies five years' grace to comply with the directive and take advantage of the technical changes that bigger companies may pioneer. I very much regret this and will not support that amendment.
Fourthly, does what we are doing help responsible companies? Not yet. As it stands, the directive creates the possibility that some companies may end up paying for free-riders on the system. We look forward to hearing the Commissioner's reply on Amendment No 92.
Fifthly, are we being fair to local authorities? No, the amendments ignore them.
Sixthly, is it wise to increase the recycling targets? No. It is not done on the basis of any assessment of cost or practicability. Parliament habitually increases targets – any targets. It is a very bad trade union habit and one that we should get away from."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples