Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-15-Speech-1-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991115.4.1-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Lange on his report in second reading. He has once again delivered excellent work with regard to making traffic more environmentally friendly. After the Auto-Oil programme for passenger cars, a sound approach has been adopted with regard to heavy-duty vehicles too. I am also pleased with what the Council adopted from Parliament in first reading. It is clear that consensus within Parliament has led to good results in the Council. However, I fail to grasp why, when agreement has been reached in the Council, Parliament should have to wait so long for the official common position. I actually find this important enough to raise as an issue. I fear, namely, that it will increasingly become a habit for common positions to be held up. The Council could, of course, say that the procedure has become more complex since the entry into effect of the Treaty of Amsterdam and therefore requires more time. However, I cannot see the difference in this respect. A text had to be laid down prior to Amsterdam and this is still the case after Amsterdam.
Alongside this, I should add that such delays create huge problems for the implementation of the relevant legislation. This is certainly the case for heavy-duty vehicles. For the car industry, it is essential to know exactly what is going to happen and when. If the decision-making process occurs much later than necessary, then it is impossible for the car industry to accommodate this adequately.
It is now the case that, regarding the strict NOx values, some car industries are aiming for 2005, first reading of the European Parliament, others for 2008, the Council’s common position, and some others still for 2006, the draft recommendation for the second reading. This intermediate phase is creating a great deal of confusion as it is. Timely clarity in this respect is what is called for.
As for my reaction to the content of the proposal, it is only natural that Mr Lange would like to see a few improvements made. If we are serious about meeting the Kyoto objectives, then this sector certainly is important. The vehicles concerned are large, have a high mileage and, as such, cause high levels of CO2 emission. More far-reaching investment into more economical engines, and not just for passenger cars, will certainly have an effect. I would therefore urge the Commission to take concrete action.
I am also in favour of tax incentives for the vehicle category of very environmentally friendly vehicles. This will help ensure that the proposed emissions are achieved in good time. Mr Lange is right in indicating that, alongside standards for emissions, standards will also come into play for other aspects of these environmentally friendly vehicles, such as noise and fuel consumption, which was mentioned earlier. Certainly in terms of noise, heavy-duty vehicles play a key role. Needless to say, test cycles for measuring vehicle exhaust gas values should mimic the real driving situation as soon as possible. Negotiations on a worldwide harmonised dynamic test procedure is also a step in the right direction.
By way of conclusion, I would like to say that I fully agree with Mr Lange’s report. I will therefore vote in favour of all his amendments. It would be good if Parliament and the Council were to draft a sound directive without a conciliation procedure. Unfortunately, over the past couple of weeks, the Council has clearly stated that it is not prepared to adopt draft amendments from the second reading. This may well result in a conciliation procedure, which will, in turn, cause delays. This is why I would like once again to urge the Council – and will do so via the European Commission if need be – to adopt the sound proposals tabled by Mr Lange."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples