Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste shipments2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051024.18.1-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-10-24-Speech-1-1422
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-16--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DEVE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2007-03-25)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, I think Mr Blokland has done a very good job, and the final compromise amendments demonstrate his willingness to compromise, which augurs well for waste management. There are, however, a number of things in this proposal to which I would like to return. Not only is the proposal that waste law should also cover animal by-products lacking in any kind of logic, but it is also dangerous. Regulation 1774/2002/EC already contains stringent rules on animal by-products; it is a s prescribing in very precise form the manner in which animal by-products are to be collected, transported, processed and used, specifying, for example, the way in which vehicles and containers are to be disinfected and cleaned. That makes this regulation more stringent than the legislation on waste. As is required in the Council’s Common Position, animal by-products must generally be excluded for the sake of legal clarity. This attempt at including them is also dangerous. The fact is that we overlooked something in Regulation 1774/2002/EC. One of the exceptions provided for in it is that dead animals may also be buried as waste. One consequence of that was that officialdom, in several places, banned animal cemeteries and required people to bury their dead animals – covered as they were by waste legislation – in landfill sites. The fact is that this sort of confusion is quite unacceptable, and so it is vitally important that this should be removed from this regulation. I have just a couple more points on shipment. A compromise has, to be sure, been reached, and we have yet to see how it can be implemented, but, before it is, we must ensure that waste management is not removed from the internal market and that the shipment of waste is not excluded from it. To do so would be wrong. One consequence of it that we must prevent – and this is my second point – is something for which there may be some enthusiasm in some countries, namely waste management becoming, again, something for municipalities to deal with, thereby using their own plant to the utmost and preventing waste from being shipped. Rules must be enacted to prevent such a thing. If they are, the compromise will be a good one."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"lex speciali"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph