Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-261"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.10.2-261"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there are few of us here at this time in the evening, but it is also true that this is the third time we have debated this report in the European Parliament.
Finally, I believe that this is a reasonable agreement, which is neither Parliament’s nor the Council’s initial proposal. Mr President, I believe that we will have no problem ensuring that this agreement is approved.
On the first occasion, in December 1998, this report on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars was approved at first reading with 48 amendments. Of those 48 amendments, the Council and Commission accepted some in their entirety and others only in part. The report therefore returned for a second reading.
The Council had accepted certain amendments which we considered to be important, but there remained certain aspects of the report and the amendments approved unanimously in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy – and by a large majority in plenary session – which we also considered to be important and which had not been accepted. We are basically talking about the inclusion, in this scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, of lightweight industrial cars, which are used widely within cities and whose carbon dioxide emissions also pollute.
It also seemed to us that they had not included a guarantee of the quality of data. For a scheme of this nature, rigour and comparability, in terms of the data collected by the governments, are essential.
It also seemed very important that we maintained something that was traditional in the positions of the Committee on the Environment: a certain degree of precaution in relation to voluntary agreements. If we bear in mind that Community Law – directives and regulations – is often not complied with, it seems to us all the more unlikely that voluntary agreements will be complied with. The Committee on the Environment had little faith in these voluntary agreements and another amendment asked for the establishment of a clear legal framework which would come into play in the event that the voluntary agreements failed.
They also finally accepted our concern that one of the paragraphs should not only mention the stabilisation of emissions, but also their reduction. Another amendment which we felt was important concerned the dimensions of vehicles.
Mr President, in total, 10 amendments were approved by a substantial majority in this House and then not accepted by the Council, and we therefore had to embark on this conciliation procedure, which I must point out has been neither difficult nor controversial.
As its very name indicates, the conciliation procedures require each of the parties to give some ground so that a final agreement can be reached. In this final agreement, our main concerns have been addressed. It includes a study of the future inclusion of lightweight industrial vehicles, the possibility of shortly presenting a proposed legal framework and reviewing the data with a view to making them more rigorous and more or less equivalent in each of the countries. In short, Parliament’s main concerns have been taken up, if not in an immediate and radical manner, at least to the extent that a commitment has been given to adopt decisions on this issue in the future.
The only amendment which was not accepted was the one relating to dimensions of vehicles. Parliament continued to insist that this was very important because the more powerful and larger the vehicle, the greater its level of emissions, and we considered it important that this be included in one of the annexes. However, bearing in mind that another six issues relating to the capacities and conditions of the vehicles have been accepted, we felt that we could not prolong the conciliation process any longer, particularly considering that we want this study on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars to be implemented immediately in each of the countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples