Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-105"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991116.6.2-105"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-1072
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2000-05-17)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2002-03-07)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Démocratie libérale (1999-07-20--2002-11-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"This proposed amendment of Directive 88/77/EEC is based on the Auto-Oil programme concluded by the European Commission in 1996. In this context, Parliament has already had occasion to adopt proposed amendments to a number of directives addressing the technical improvement of engines and fuel quality. I would not like us to lose sight of the strategy behind the Auto-Oil programme: the objective is to reduce pollution of the atmosphere connected with vehicle emissions. At the second reading stage, it is important for Parliament to clearly distinguish between the elements which it considers a priority and the rest. Some might think, perhaps, that it is obvious. However, the second reading of a text, referred under the codecision procedure, is all too often an opportunity to enter into a game of one-upmanship against the Council. This temptation must be avoided at all cost, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the European Parliament is in danger of losing sight of the general objective of the proposal before it. Next, if it makes the text less clear, it is weakening its position. Finally, it loses its credibility with the people and those directly concerned. In presenting his reasons, the rapporteur explains that the amendments adopted at the first reading by the European Parliament have made a significant contribution towards improving the initial Commission proposal. He specifies that the Council has, in its common position, taken on board some of Parliament’s significant amendments. I fully share this point of view. The rapporteur has, however, has started on the path of one-upmanship, and, in supporting 47 amendments, he was taking the risk of causing a delay in the entry into force of the best terms of this text. The Council’s common position will make it possible to make real progress regarding pollution related to heavy-duty vehicle traffic. I was not in favour of adopting the amendments on which the House had to vote, since this would have delayed the entry into force of this text and thus the implementation of investment and industrial strategies. The sooner the directive can come into force, the greater the beneficial effect on the environment."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph