Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-402"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050413.25.3-402"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking my fellow members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in particular the shadow rapporteurs, for their good and constructive cooperation. Some 15 million motor vehicles come off the production lines in the EU every year, and the motor industry is one of the most important business sectors in Europe, creating jobs, encouraging innovation and vital in terms of our competitiveness. Cars, though, also produce waste, and that is what we are discussing this evening. Every year in Europe, ten million vehicles end up on the scrapheap. If cars are not piled up as high in scrap yards as they used to be and are less of a blot on the landscape, that has something to do with the considerable extent to which parts of cars can be reused and recycled.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your kind words.
The objective of the motor vehicle type approval directive is to lay down provisions whereby motor cars and light commercial vehicles can be constructed in such a way that they meet the minimum quotas laid down in the end-of-life vehicles directive in respect of reusability, recyclability and recoverability. The end-of-life vehicles directive imposed binding targets on manufacturers. With effect from 2006, at least 85% by mass of a car – and with effect from 2015 at least 95% of it by mass – must be recoverable and reusable or capable of being recycled. These – the 95% from 2015 onwards in particular – are very ambitious targets, for they would mean that the cars of the future would produce scarcely any waste.
Whether or not this goal is achieved will depend not only on the manufacturer’s use of certain materials, but also and primarily on the further development of recycling technology and on the definition of recyclability. There is nevertheless no disputing the fact that the recyclability of automobiles and the avoidance of waste are important objectives for Europe’s environmental policies. It is astonishing, however, that cars contribute only 1% of the total quantity of waste in the EU. The EU has made a particularly good job of minimising waste not only from packaging, electronic scrap and batteries, but also from used cars.
Let me now turn to the core issues. Although the Commission put forward an eminently respectable proposal for a directive, it was necessary for us in this House to make a number of improvements to it. Following the committee’s vote and a successful trilogue, we have put together a compromise package for agreement at first reading, backed by the three main groups in this House. This being what one might call my maiden report, I, as rapporteur, regard that as a major success.
Our joint amendments, on which we will be voting tomorrow, are aimed above all at improving the way in which the directive will be implemented, without jeopardising the achievement of the recycling targets, which are so important in terms of environmental policy. Type approval is meant to be practicable from the point of view of the competent authorities in the Member States and of the manufacturers, and to entail the minimum possible costs. The amendments also take into account important aspects of best practice in type-approval. As rapporteur, I have from the very outset been particularly concerned to maintain the distinction between the testing of new types and new models. New models are defined as automobiles that are already on the market in the EU – there are currently about 600 of them – while new types are automobiles that will come onto the market in the future, approximately 100 a year.
The intention is that priority be given to the testing of new types. Neither the authorities nor the manufacturers would be capable of doing what the Commission envisaged in its original proposal, namely testing all models in the EU within 36 months of the directive’s entry into force. The testing of new types must be given priority in order to ensure that all of those coming onto the EU market in the future comply with the binding targets as imposed by the end-of-life vehicles directive, and so the 36-month time limit proposed by the Commission should apply to new types, enabling the models already in existence to be tested thereafter. We have agreed in this House – and with the Council – on a period of 54 months, corresponding to the arithmetical mean between what the Commission originally proposed and the 72 months that I originally put forward, which itself corresponds to the life-cycle of an average automobile.
The definition of ‘reference vehicle’ is another case in point. It is good practice and avoids misunderstandings if the authority and the manufacturer select the type by mutual agreement. ‘Reference vehicle’ means the vehicle that is most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability. Turning to the ban on heavy metals, I am glad to be able to say that we have been able to agree that the prohibition of heavy metals should be referred to under the heading of the preliminary assessment rather than that of type-approval, where it does not belong. It is in any case my view that the Commission had good reasons for refraining from banning heavy metals in its original proposal, for heavy metals are already prohibited by many other items of legislation.
We did have a problem with one amendment from the Council, which reached us, so to speak, just before close of play, and which was intended to permit the comitology procedure through another back door. Parliament fought to get amendments to the end-of-life vehicles directive treated as legislation rather than as implementing measures, and so we could not accept the possibility of making technical adjustments to the end-of-life vehicles directive without reference to this House. I am glad that, in the trilogue, the Council and the Commission eventually agreed to that. This is a step in the right direction, towards more democracy and transparency in the process whereby European laws are made.
Let me close by returning to the subject of regulation. Automobiles are, in the EU, regulated to an extraordinary degree. When enacting legislation, we must always consider that it will have to be implemented in places that are a long way from Brussels and Strasbourg. We have to consider the businesses that will ultimately be affected by it. Commissioner Verheugen, what I now say is addressed to you personally. I particularly welcome your initiative where the assessment of legislation’s impact is concerned and am glad that, in your role as industry commissioner, you have rediscovered your liberal roots. It is important that new directives and regulations, particularly those relating to the protection of the environment and of consumers, should in future be subject to checks to ascertain what effect they have on competitiveness. Existing directives must be examined in order to be capable of being implemented quickly in the Member States. When considering future regulations, though, we must, as a matter of priority, ensure that they really do help to protect the environment rather than entailing more bureaucracy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples