Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.11.2-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the concerns about increasing quantities of electrical and electronic equipment entering the waste system have been well rehearsed. There can be no dispute that this type of waste is a problem. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the problem will continue to grow. However, there is a world of difference between agreeing that something is a problem and agreeing with a proposed solution.
My purpose in making this address, therefore, is to enter into the record my total disagreement with this directive. My central objection is that the directive is economically illiterate. Its effect will be to create massive quantities of materials in a highly volatile market. When quantities increase as a result of this directive, the value of recycled materials will drop, making the economics of recycling extremely uncertain. On this basis, producers and eventually their customers, are being asked to sign a blank cheque.
Neither does any serious consideration seem to have been given to the problem of labour recruitment. Salvaging materials is highly labour-intensive yet the work is unattractive. Either wages will have to go up sharply to meet the demand for more staff or the scheme will be bedevilled by labour shortages. The recycling plants required to meet this directive are highly capital-intensive. With such uncertain returns it seem unlikely that there will be any commitment to providing the necessary facilities.
Finally, I have to add to a list of objections that is by no means complete the fact that, as we have learned to expect from EU legislation, the system is highly bureaucratic, adding massive overheads and a totally unnecessary burden on industry. It also requires Member States to create yet more criminal offences to regulate the commercial market. Is turning our businessmen into criminals really what European unity is really all about? Is this really what Monnet planned? Surely there is a better way.
Logically, if there are tax breaks for companies which use recycled materials and import controls which favour equipment with high proportions of recycled materials as well as tax breaks for companies that process the materials, this would create a market. One could find that, as with the car batteries' recycling – before the EU destroyed it – a new market would be created. Properly designed such a scheme could permit end-users to be paid for delivering waste material, which is exactly what happened with car batteries and the reason why – before the EU intervened – we managed to recycle over 80% of car batteries. With that degree of cooperation the most expensive part of the scheme – collection costs – are minimised.
It seems that, whenever there is a choice between a simple and effective scheme and one that is costly, bureaucratic and inefficient and also criminalises the business fraternity, the European Union always goes for the latter. If you need an explanation as to why there is growing disenchantment with the European Union, just look at this directive and the many more like it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples