Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.2.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"It is interesting how, in this House we move seamlessly from global economic policy and world summits to the technical regulations of exhaust and sound level emissions from recreational craft in Europe: such is the broad sweep of politics dealt with in this place. I believe strongly that we must always be extremely wary in Europe of over-regulation, of using 'a sledge-hammer to crack a nut', of introducing unnecessary, cumbersome and bureaucratic regulations. To put this directive into perspective, recreational craft in the EU are responsible for less than half of 1% of all exhaust emissions in the Union and
it is the case that this regulation turns out to have severe impacts on small boat owners, driving them unnecessarily off the waterways, then sadly this will merely increase disenchantment with Europe among many of our citizens.
In my own country we have a very thriving small canal boat industry to which Commissioner Patten has just referred. As a former Member of Parliament in the West Country, he will know that industry extremely well. It is composed of many historic craft, the potential for tourism is extremely great and we must be careful to ensure that they are not regulated out of existence. It consists of many small enterprises and enthusiasts. The object of this proposal is to complete the internal market and to protect the health of users and third parties in Europe: those are indeed laudable aims.
However, as I intimated, I do have a number of concerns about the way these regulations have been framed. First of all, on the issue of retrospectivity. In my view, retrospective laws are often extremely bad laws – they are grossly unfair to existing users and industries which have grown up under an existing regulatory framework. Secondly, they very often act as a perverse incentive. For instance, under the regulations being framed in this directive, if you have an old boat with an old polluting engine, it is perfectly legal provided you do not replace it with a slightly newer possibly even cleaner engine of a greater power rating. If you do that, obviously improving the environment in the process, then you are subject to the full force of these regulations and would possibly be faced with extremely expensive compliance costs for your craft. I cannot see that regulations framed in this way benefit anybody. Furthermore, it is of course extremely difficult to see how they could possibly be policed in practice without having inspectors in every boatyard, every harbour, every port, every river and every canal in Europe, which we are clearly not going to do.
Can I also move on and say a couple of words about some of the amendments which have been proposed. I will not mention all of them (the House will be pleased to know). The Socialists have tabled a proposal by Mr Lange which was passed by the Environment Committee (No 30) seeking to impose an additional second table of stricter limits for boats on drinking water lakes. I understand the raison d'être behind that proposal, but I believe that it would prove extremely problematical. Very difficult to implement in practice, it would be a barrier to trade and it would completely contradict the Commission's intention to harmonise the internal market which will be further fragmented. I hope the House will think very closely before supporting that amendment. The proposed limits in Mr Lange's amendments are extremely strict, particularly for two and four-stroke engines. They are technically very difficult to implement and the prospective benefits that are produced are not very great. I am sure that the problems presented in one or two lakes in Germany and Austria could be solved, but imposing these limits throughout the whole of Europe where they are often unnecessary will not do that. It will result in manufacturers producing engines only for their own local markets in their own country and I would urge Parliament to reject those amendments.
Can I also say a word about Mr Lange's other proposed Amendment No 48 on sound level measurements. Without going into the technicalities of it, the new method that he proposes would cause many problems particularly if you had an instantaneous difficulty, particularly say wave-slap, resulting in a one-off sound level measurement which would be very difficult to repeat day after day and therefore very difficult to implement in practice.
This proposal could produce modest environmental benefits, but we must make sure that those modest environmental benefits do not come about at the expense at the loss of hundreds of jobs in many small enterprises across Europe and the pricing of many European citizens off the waterways which they have enjoyed for many hundreds of years."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"if"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples