Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-12-Speech-1-073"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Batteries, accumulators and their waste2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051212.14.1-073"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-12-12-Speech-1-0742
lpv:speaker	lp:Holger Krahmer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; REGI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei - Die Liberalen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I would like to concentrate on the three core aspects of this directive, those being its legal basis, the ban on cadmium, and the collection targets. This directive has as its priority objective the reduction and avoidance of waste batteries, but we cannot overlook the fact that it is also an example of product-oriented legislation for the internal market. The fact that it has Article 175 as its sole legal basis could result in varying standards and hence in distortions of competition and of the market. It is for that reason that the Liberals support Articles 95 and 175 as a dual legal basis, and in so doing we are doing as the Legal Affairs Committee has recommended. In both the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Council, a ban on cadmium and mercury was adopted only in relation to portable batteries. Our group is not in favour of there being any further bans on marketing or of the ban on cadmium being extended to, for example, tools without cables or medical equipment. The example of power tools is always being quoted, and I will say now, particularly for the benefit of Mr Schlyter and also Mrs Westlund, that there are of course alternatives to nickel-cadmium available for those, but every kind of technology has its advantages and disadvantages. In the case of rechargeable batteries and accumulators, which amount in any case to only a very small quantity of waste, we have to consider other characteristics as well, such as energy efficiency, useful life and, of course, the price that the consumer has to pay for them. The presence of an alternative on the market does not necessarily mean that it is an adequate substitute. The actual amount of cadmium that we in Europe absorb through our environment is considerably below the level regarded by the WHO as harmful to health, and it is worth noting that only about one per cent of it comes from batteries. Let me conclude by considering the collection targets. The Council is not aiming very high with its targets of 25% after six years and 45% after ten, but it has to be said that the 40% and 60% respectively on which we agreed in the Committee are not realistic; the quotas in some Member States are under 10%. In Germany, over ten years of all-out effort have enabled us to achieve 35%. It follows that it is important that we review the collection targets in six years’ time and, in so doing, learn from the experience and best practice in the Member States. Finally, I would like to emphasise that all stakeholders bear a responsibility for this; while we must not dump the costs of collection on the retail trade, we do have to oblige traders to collect!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph