Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.12.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by thanking the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and, in particular, its rapporteur, Mrs González Álvarez, for dealing with this matter so quickly. It is in fact in all the parties’ interests that this decision should be taken without further delay so that we might set in motion an objective monitoring of the environmental agreements which have been made with the car industry.
To summarise, I should like to say that I am very satisfied with the fact that the common position has, on the whole, obtained such a positive reception from the rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. I hope now that this House can offer its support so that the decision can be taken as quickly as possible. We shall then have the opportunity to monitor in sufficient detail the way in which the environmental agreements concluded with the car industry are being implemented. If plenary considers it necessary to submit more Amendments, the Commission is, in certain cases, prepared to support them, either in full or in principle.
Mrs González Álvarez pointed out in her recommendation that the common position contains many of the points of view which the European Parliament presented in its first reading. As Mrs Schleicher said, Mrs Flemming has stated that she could accept the common position without any further changes.
It is important that we should be clear that it will only be possible for this decision to come into force during 1999 if the common position is accepted in its current version. Otherwise, we shall lose a whole calendar year in which we could be collecting data.
Where the Amendments which have been submitted are concerned, we can give our full support to three proposals for possible improvements to the common position, namely Amendment No 3, part 1, together with Amendment Nos 7 and 10. We can also support a number of further Amendments in principle: Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 4, part 2, together with Amendment No 9, even if we consider that they need to be reformulated.
I want briefly to talk about the justifications behind the position adopted by the Commission. First and foremost, I want to comment on Amendment No 2 about also allowing other motor vehicles to be covered by the decision. As a consequence of the desire expressed by the European Parliament at the first reading, the Commission is at present taking the first steps to include light goods vehicles’ fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the legislation concerning type approval. This applies therefore to vehicles in category M1. The Commission will then see if it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from such vehicles. The Commission agrees that vehicles in category M1 are the most important target group for such measures. There are therefore no plans at present to look into the question of whether other types of vehicle might be included, mainly because vehicles such as lorries are expected in any case to be highly fuel-efficient or because the contribution of, for example, two-wheeled vehicles to local carbon dioxide emissions is not great. It is the Commission’s intention to take account of these factors and to reformulate the proposed text in the following way: “The Commission is to investigate the possibility of submitting appropriate proposals concerning harmonised procedures for measuring the specific carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles in category M1 in accordance with Annex No 3 to Directive 70/156.”
When it comes to Amendment No 4, part 2 concerning other parts of the strategy in respect of carbon dioxide and vehicles, we consider that the first part of that Amendment is almost entirely covered by justification 6 in the common position. We cannot accept this part of the Amendment because it ought to include a reference to the Community objective of 120 g/km. The year by which this objective is to be achieved, namely 2010, has however been left out of the European Parliament’s Amendment. In the second part of the proposed justification, reference is made to the second and third pillars in the strategy concerning carbon dioxide and private cars and, specifically, to consumer information and the employment of tax measures. The directive concerning consumer information was adopted by the European Parliament at the second reading on 4 November of this year and may therefore be considered to have been accepted in accordance with the common position. There is therefore no reason to refer to this matter again. Because tax measures are an important factor in the strategy, it may well be worth including a reference to these. In view of the fact that the Commission is already in the process of investigating the possibility of a frame of reference, the proposed justification ought to reflect this situation in a correct manner. The Commission proposes another variant, worded as follows: “The Commission is investigating the possibility of introducing a frame of reference for tax measures which may encourage the use of fuel-efficient private cars.”
With regard to Amendment No 9 concerning the content of the annual report, the rapporteur wants to add a new Article to clarify what the annual report is to contain. The report is to include an analysis of the extent to which changes in carbon dioxide emissions depend upon manufacturers’ initiatives or upon factors which have to do with the strategy concerning carbon dioxide and cars. An analysis of this kind is important for discovering whether manufacturers are in fact carrying out the tasks to which they have committed themselves within the framework of the environmental agreement. This is the case, for example, in relation to the partial objectives which have been set for the year 2003 and naturally also in relation to the final objectives for the year 2008. However, an analysis of this kind requires a major effort in developing relevant methods and technical research, as well as intensive discussions with the manufacturers. It will also take some years before it is apparent whether any developments worth mentioning have in fact taken place. The Commission will therefore probably not act upon the first assessment until the time limits for the partial and final objectives have expired. This ought to be reflected in the text of the decision. We therefore propose the following reformulation. I quote: “In the reports for the year by which the partial objective is to have been achieved and for the year by which the final objective is to have been achieved, it shall be stated whether the reductions are due to technical measures taken by the manufacturers or whether there are other reasons, such as a change in behaviour on the part of consumers.”
We have difficulty in accepting the remaining Amendments, that is to say Amendment No 1, Amendment No 3, part 2, Amendment No 4, part 1 and Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 8 which neither improve nor clarify the text.
Finally, I want to say a few words about Amendment No 3, part 2. Here, it is prescribed that the Commission is to compose a legal framework for environmental agreements. I want to emphasise that the European Parliament’s involvement in the environmental agreements is a crucial issue for me. As I have already explained before the plenary sitting on 3 November, I do not intend to present any new proposals for environmental agreements as long as the European Parliament’s role remains undecided. We are therefore now putting together a general document concerning environmental agreements, their legal framework and the institutional procedures relating to them. When it comes to such agreements as have already been made, or are in the process of being made, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from private cars, the Commission has, on a number of occasions, pointed out that legislation concerning the limits for carbon dioxide emissions will be considered if the car industry does not fulfil its commitments. Now would not be the appropriate time, however, to introduce the technical preparations for such legislation. This would be to send out the wrong message to industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples