Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-05-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050905.19.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this draft directive, a sensible and necessary one, was welcomed as such by the business community as a whole. We should establish proportionate and loophole-free rules to apply fairly and uniformly across the whole of European business and industry. We also have an acceptable compromise report before us. Our aim has been to prevent accidents and the consequent damage to the environment and human health that can result from the handling and disposal of waste materials from the mineral oil-extracting industries, and we have sought to do this by laying down minimum standards to improve the management of this sort of waste.
Waste from the extractive industries amounts to some 400 million tonnes per annum, equivalent to 29% of the waste produced by the Community as a whole. Managing it does of course involve risks; we are all familiar with the accidents in such places as Baia Mare and Aberfan, among others.
The fact is that ecologically-responsible rules for waste management not only reduce the quantity of waste, but also give businesses an incentive to invest in research into environmental issues associated with the extractive industries and thereby acquire from the world market know-how that they can analyse. There are many examples of this: let me give you one from Austria, where one firm has managed to avoid depositing some 100 000 tonnes of minerals used in construction in landfill sites. Despite that, there are weak points, one example being the lack of clarity as to the directive’s scope. I find it regrettable that a majority could not be found to support the amendment I tabled on this subject.
I would also like to point out the need for provisions to be enacted to deal with non-hazardous or inert waste, and that these must be proportionate. I therefore believe that Amendments 11, 13 and 47 should be rejected and that we should come up with alternative proposals for provisions relating to non-hazardous and inert waste, with separate consideration for these concepts. The use of landfill sites for non-hazardous or inert waste should also be allowed for a limited period of time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples