Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-271"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.9.2-271"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I believe that the approach of this directive is out of date. That is confirmed by the Commission's recently published Thematic Strategy on Recycling. This now says: 'Current directives foresee that all Member States should achieve the same recycling targets as this one does. However, the question is legitimate whether this uniformity in targets is most effective, both from an environmental and economic point of view. It might be better to have an overall EU recycling target at EU level and let market forces determine which recycling facilities can achieve the objective in the most cost-effective manner.' How right that is! We know that there are some Member States that want to go beyond the proposed targets. Others will find them impossible to meet. So why are we ploughing on with a strategy that is already being undermined by the practicalities?
The United Kingdom has a problem with this. For many years we have relied on landfill. Our geology favoured that. We consequently had no particular incentive to press ahead with recycling, as some countries did.
We are now moving as fast as we can, but there is no way that we can move as fast as the rapporteur's amendments prescribe. To do that would mean spending EUR 1.8 billion on recycling packaging waste alone, and packaging waste is only 6% of the waste going to landfill in Britain. This would mean that we would have to tell British local councils to initiate policies to remove packaging from the household waste stream. That takes time and money, Mrs Corbey.
Maybe such policies are not the most pressing priorities of my country's local authorities. Maybe their priority is financing home helps, Meals on Wheels for the elderly or services of another kind. If subsidiarity is to mean anything at all, such priorities should be for local decision. How can I defend a situation where a combination of continental MEPs press for changes that will supply an imperative to British local authorities that a majority of British MEPs have not voted for?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples