Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 September 2000 - Strasbourg

13. End-of-life vehicles

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0212/2000) by Mr Florenz, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee, for a Council directive on end-of-life vehicles [C5-258/2000 – 1997/0194 (COD)].

  Florenz (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, to begin with, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking my colleagues for bravely cooperating in the intensive way they did. It was, of course, not always as simple as that. With me, it never is. However, I am very grateful to you that we have got through all this.

A number of years ago, the European institutions made the right decision to attend to private motoring. We began with cars and oil and are now faced with the question of what to do with the nine million cars which end up on the scrap heap every year. Tonight, we shall also be discussing tyres, and we shall certainly one day also have to discuss how roads need to look in the future, given that they are much too noisy.

In view of the nine million cars withdrawn from circulation every year and the 45 million litres or so of waste oil, I think something needed to be done about this issue. I believe the Commission has undoubtedly submitted a somewhat overly prescriptive proposal with, in my opinion, some outmoded initiatives in terms of environmental policy. Fortunately, more work has, however, been done upon the proposal in the course of the three readings, and we now have a proposal which is along the right lines.

Let us bear in mind that, where motoring as a whole is concerned, 80% of damage to the environment is due to driving, 19% to car manufacture and only 1% to the disposal of vehicles. We must therefore set the correct priorities where this issue too is concerned. I therefore believe that, by setting exhaust values and quality standards for fuel, we have begun in the right way, and today we closed with the question: how do we deal with the issue of end-of-life vehicles? We have introduced rigid quotas, without which no progress can be made. This Parliament ought also, however, to have had the courage to make a really bold decision in favour of a really new type of car for the future, one which will not weigh 1 500 kg but perhaps only 1 000 kg and which, with its lifetime ‘mileage’ of 300 000 km, may be seen to have genuine advantages in terms of environmental policy.

On the basis of the Commission’s proposal, we have unfortunately allowed ourselves to be persuaded to adopt old quotas which frankly promote cars made of steel rather than modern, versatile cars which are made of other materials and which are much lighter. Cars of this kind, made out of plastic or fibreglass or whatever, do not, however, have the advantage of being able to be recycled. How, for example, can you seriously expect to recycle an airbag, which is there as a safety feature and not for recycling purposes? A bold move towards a special quota for really light cars would therefore have been appropriate in this case. Unfortunately, we have missed that opportunity, something I particularly regret.

One general point – and also a disputed one in this House – was the question of costs. The Commission has been quick to say that, in the future, all costs are to be borne by the manufacturer. At first glance, that is a brilliant idea. The only thing is that, in the end, this would harm the consumer by eliminating competition. And that is my overall objection to this Directive. Certainly, we would now be clearly transferring the costs to the manufacturer, but to one who no longer had any competition and who would in future dictate the cost of recycling cars. And it is precisely this which is anti the consumer. We need more, not less, input from the market in this area. This is a wrong decision, which I very much regret because it will have consequences. We see this already where computers are concerned. The Directive concerned is, in fact, on the table. Before long, it will be lawnmowers, then mopeds and then furniture which will be subject to such directives. I wonder to whom, one day, we shall return our old roads when they are too noisy, and who is to pay for the transaction. Cost allocation is therefore not as simple as all that. I should really have liked things to have worked out differently, but I accept the majority decision.

The bans on metals are quite in order because we need, in the longer term, to come up with a ban, and not only because of the scientific results. We have made exceptions which will be reviewed by the Commission in three years’ time for, together with the scientific advisory board, the Commission has overall responsibility for making the relevant decisions in this area in three years’ time. I believe it will do so.

All in all, I believe that, apart from the issue of cost, this Directive is a great success and marks a step forward. I would thank the Commission and the Council and, once again, my fellow MEPs. It has been a pleasure to work with you.

(Applause)

  Lange (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I too have reason to thank Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz. I also found that the Parliamentary delegation very much got its act together during the conciliation and has finished by submitting a very good proposal. Two aspects are of particular importance for me. First of all, we have succeeded in clarifying the fact that, from the end of next year, end-of-life vehicles will have to be properly disposed of throughout the European Union. In other words, it will no longer be possible to dispose of cars illegally or to abandon them somewhere in the woods. Nor will there be the impulse to export them in one way or another to Eastern Europe. Instead, they will have to be properly disposed of on the spot by authorised companies. For me, that is one of the great, fundamental successes of this directive.

The second important point for me is no longer the issue of costs and competition. These are problems we argued a bit about and finally solved quite reasonably by means of a compromise which all sides find workable. Instead, the second important point is the fact that, by means of this Directive, we have established that new cars must demonstrate in their type verification and test that they are easy to recycle. In this Directive, we are calling upon the Commission to alter the directive on type licensing so that, in the future, new cars have to be built in such a way that they can easily be recycled. That is the crucial thing. In that way, we are moving away from the end-of-pipe technology whereby we always have to consider what to do with the remains of cars. Instead, we need to bear in mind, right from the time that vehicles are built, that cars, like other products, have to be re-used and disposed of. That is precisely the right way of going about matters, and I am therefore very pleased that we have got the directive up and running in this way.

  Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the compromise that has been reached is a great success for environmental and consumer protection. It is the first time that manufacturers’ liability for waste has been up for debate at all, and the fact that manufacturers’ liability is soon to become a reality is to be welcomed. The compromise reached on heavy metals is also a giant step towards an environmentally friendly strategy for dealing with the flow of materials. I believe that this outcome, which is also excellent from a green point of view, will help encourage the motor industry to be more innovative and to begin to develop cars which can be recycled more easily.

However, the compromise is also a slap in the face for our Chancellor and, more precisely, for the German car industry, particularly Volkswagen which has unfortunately tried to stand in the way of this Motor Directive. I also hope that the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, will draw the relevant lessons from this debate and, when it comes to the Directive on Electronic Waste – which is again concerned with manufacturers’ liability – will also, in actual fact, try to act in the interests of the consumer. I hope too that we do not allow ourselves to be put under pressure by individual industrial interests.

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, our group is quite satisfied with the result of the conciliation, even if there is always, of course, room for a little further progress.

Our objective has always been to obtain as soon as possible a comprehensive system for recovering end-of-life vehicles, with stringent demands in terms of recycling and a ban on dangerous substances. We also wanted manufacturers to be held completely liable, so that it is the manufacturers who take financial responsibility for recovery.

Once this decision has been made, the position in a few years’ time will be quite close to what we had wanted to achieve. What is worth noting, as far as the conciliation process is concerned, is the fact that Parliament has unfortunately slowed down this development towards manufacturer’s liability instead of speeding it up. It would be quite alarming if Parliament were to exchange roles and, instead of making the running, hand over that role to its opponents.

  Sacconi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, as the rapporteur and Mr Lange have already said, the positive outcome of this legislative procedure is useful, not just in terms of what the directive lays down but also because it marks the start of a process and there is the prospect of a gradual change across the entire manufacturing process in a sector as important as the automotive industry, and a review of the entire process, from vehicle design through to the choice of new materials and components to make proper recycling possible.

Not only is manufacturing reconciled with environmental protection, but we are taking the first steps along the road which has been defined as the environmental conversion of the economy, in what is, I repeat, such an important industry. Of course, we have only achieved this result after complex negotiations with car manufacturers, who have at last agreed to bear the financial burden of scrapping cars as from 2007.

Lastly, it is important to highlight another point too, which is of a more specific political-institutional nature. Let us be honest, we are all aware that we started the conciliation procedure from very opposed positions – there was even a certain amount of interinstitutional tension between Parliament and the Council – with many national differences in terms of both experience and interests. And yet, thanks to the commitment and sense of responsibility of all concerned, we reached a consensus in a difficult, major and highly controversial field, and in doing so we have added another building block in the construction of Europe. At this point in time, in terms of the more general debate currently underway, this is a significant result.

  De Roo (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to end-of-life vehicles, we have reached a sound compromise. For the first time, European legislation defines manufacturer’s liability in no uncertain terms. In 1994, the packaging directive provided for liability to be shared between the government and manufacturers. This has proved ineffective in practice. We are now dealing with manufacturer’s liability in the case of end-of-life vehicles. I welcome this for it will be in the interests of manufacturers to produce their cars in such a way that they can be recycled more easily. Unfortunately, the text stipulates that the manufacturer will be wholly or mainly responsible. This means that systems will be set up which differ from country to country, which is unfortunate, as this runs counter to the internal market idea.

In the case of the electronic and electrical waste directive, this must be regulated more effectively. We need to move towards individual manufacturer’s liability. My own country, the Netherlands, has a great deal to learn in this respect.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, it is true that the legislative procedure has been long and difficult, and I have said so. It should be noted that the Commission's initial proposal was presented in July 1997. During this prolonged procedure and in spite of the complexity of the legislation, it has been possible to solve a series of problems thanks to the colegislators and, once again, to the three institutions' will to come to an agreement. I am therefore pleased with the agreement on a joint text, reached on 23 May this year at the Conciliation Committee.

I would particularly like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, and to the members of the said committee. I am sure that the joint text represents a good balance between the need to guarantee a high level of environmental protection and the legitimate concerns of the various participants.

I would, however, like to emphasise three statements that the Commission will make when it adopts the directive. The aim of these three is to make some clarifications which the Commission considers to be essential.

Firstly, the provision laid down in Article 5(1) does not oblige the Member States to establish separate collection systems with special funding requirements, but allows them to use the existing waste collection systems.

Second, with regard to Article 5(3), it is the responsibility of the Member States to decide which producers, concessionaries and collectors must be registered in accordance with the framework directive on waste or in a new register created specifically.

Third, I would like to clarify that Article 7(1) does not lay down requirements, conditions or additional criteria in relation to the technical inspection of vehicles.

Generally speaking, this text constitutes a significant step towards sustainable production and consumption, a model for future Community initiatives in the field of specific waste management such as, for example, the directive on electrical and electronic waste, to which reference has been made.

Many thanks, Mr President. Once again, I congratulate all the speakers and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on the work carried out.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.