Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-030"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Recreational craft2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010705.2.4-030"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-07-05-Speech-4-0312
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioners, this is a directive which the Finnish recreational craft industry, for example, has been looking for because it believes it is important that we have uniform rules. It is important that we take into account current developments, for example with four-stroke engines, which the Commission’s proposal does. I believe that the Commission’s proposal, along with the improvements which we are adding here, will reduce emissions considerably. It is said that exhaust gases will be cut by half. In this way, we will be able to contribute to improvements in sensitive water environments. As a Finn, and not necessarily as a representative of the ELDR Group, I must say, however, that I am worried about the two-tier system which the rapporteur proposes. Otherwise, I believe that on many points he has drawn up a realistic proposal which corrects certain errors in the Commission’s proposal and which takes into account the costs and classic boats. I, myself, have a boat over 30 years old in my boat house which would not meet these standards; I believe it is a classic boat. In this respect it is a good proposal, but a division whereby different rules apply for inland waterways and seas is not good. For example, in the country which the Commissioner responsible for and I know best, it is possible to use the same boat on inland waterways and on the sea in the same day. When a boat is manufactured, it is not known which conditions it will be used for. I therefore think that Amendment No 15 is unworkable, and that is also the point made by the rapporteur. There is much to be done if we are to be able to engage with the recreational craft sector. In this context, I would also like to have seen us dealing with septic tank requirements, as I believe that this, at least with regard to the situation in the Baltic Sea, is one of the most problematic environmental issues associated with the boat industry. I would thank the rapporteur for a good proposal. We have been greatly interested in the fact that the Commission has now tabled this. It is important in order to ensure that the water environment will be improved. However, I believe that the issues which Mr Lange addressed with regard to groundwater should be solved at their respective locations, and that is something for which we have other legal instruments."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph