Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060703.20.1-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, finally, the moment had arrived. On 3 May 2006, more than two and a half years after the Commission had presented a proposal for the review of the Batteries Directive, the Council and Parliament, through conciliation, reached agreement on the final text.
Given the positive negotiation result, I warmly recommend this House to vote, tomorrow, in favour of the new Batteries Directive, and should like to ask the Council to do likewise as soon as possible, so that the new legislation can be published. In addition, the importance of what the Member States have to do in implementing and enforcing the Batteries Directive should not be underestimated. I would express the wish and expectation that a start be made straight away, so that we do not need to do the impossible in the closing stages.
In my view, a review will be needed in future with regard to the applications to which an exemption from the cadmium ban applies. I take it as read that the Commission will be attentive in this respect and will present a proposal to Parliament in due course.
First of all, I should like to thank the Austrian Presidency for the constructive way in which this dossier was brought to a favourable conclusion. In the 23 amendments that were adopted at second reading, the presidency, and by extension also the Council, did more than meet this House halfway. I should also like to thank all Members of this House, especially those who were in the delegation and the conciliation secretariat, for their commitment and support. It is partly thanks to them that we have a good result.
In addition, I am indebted to the Commission for its input in the compromises and the drafting of new text proposals. This has proved invaluable in terms of the process whereby agreement was reached. What have we now achieved? I should like to single out a few key points.
First of all, the directive enables consumers to choose a cost-effective battery more easily. After all, the cheapest battery is not always the most cost-effective. Since the directive makes it compulsory for producers to specify the capacity on batteries, consumers can assess the price/quality ratio themselves and select the most cost-effective battery for each purpose.
Secondly, the agreement also stipulates that it must be straight-forward to remove batteries from appliances. By replacing the battery, we can prevent consumers from having to dispose of perfectly good appliances because the battery is flat.
Thirdly, the producer must take back batteries after use and handle the recycling of them. This also applies to those supplied in the past.
Fourthly, the directive requires all Member States to set up an effective collection system. This is a considerable improvement for at the moment, only six Member States have a national collection system for batteries. Moreover, the differences in collection percentages are still very high, ranging from 59% in Belgium to 16% in France.
Fifthly, all producers of batteries in the European Union will be registered, so that all producers will be responsible for funding the collection and processing of spent batteries.
Finally, I should like to mention the keystone of the directive on which we had already reached agreement at first reading, namely the ban on cadmium in portable batteries, which enters into effect in 2008. As a result, this harmful metal will, in time, disappear from household waste, with a consequent benefit to the environment and to public health. Moreover, the alternatives to nickel cadmium batteries appear to be far superior."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples