Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.2.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Callanan and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for this comprehensive report. It is very well timed for European citizens, who are now preparing for their holidays and may experience the problem daily.
Engine noise, air and water pollution are becoming an increasingly common irritant in recreational activities. I recently read in the press that, in the past, no attention was paid to research and technology on noise pollution and that is the reason for the delays in development.
While exhaust emissions from recreational craft are relatively small in comparison to the total amount of pollution in the environment, the effect of pollution is amplified by the way recreational craft are used. Noise pollution has been targeted, because motor boats are often used in areas where people go to relax. Recreational areas free of unpleasant noise are an important but scarce national resource that should be protected. This has led to the introduction of different emission requirements in the different Member States. The proposed legislation therefore seeks to avoid fragmentation of the internal market and at the same time to ensure a high level of health, safety, and environmental consumer protection.
The Commission proposal is a good example of synergy between environment and industrial policies contributing to sustainable development. Comparable legislation exists in the United States on exhaust emissions from recreational out-board engines. The environmental protection agency is currently preparing legislation to cover recreational in-board and stern drive engines. These cases are under discussion under the auspices of the transatlantic business dialogue, in which I am also participating. Mr Callanan and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are to be congratulated for the amendments which aim to simplify the noise-testing procedures, produce the conformity assessment costs for SMEs and clarify requirements in the case of replacement engines.
The Commission can accept the amendments which aim to clarify and improve the wording of the initial text in relation to partly completed craft and weather conditions, as well as those concerning the simplification of the noise-testing procedures. The amendments concerning the distinction of stern drive engines, the formulas to be used for the noise-testing procedures and clarification of the coverage of replacement engines can be accepted in principle. While we have no problem with the general direction of the proposals, we need to analyse further the values and definitions proposed.
As regards the institutional aspects, the proposal envisages, in conformity with the rules governing comitology, a regulatory committee to deal with a number of standard issues relating to the adaptation of technical provisions to technical progress, including measures concerning the evolution of exhaust and noise emission limits. A regulatory committee is thus essential for the efficient implementation and the regular update of a specific range of technical elements of the proposed directive. It would be contrary to the simplifying aims of the comitology decision to initiate a formal modification procedure in the case of non-essential provisions subject to regular review. Consequently, the amendments requiring the rescission of this provision relating to comitology cannot be accepted by the Commission, as they are contrary to its executive powers under Article 202 of Treaty.
Nevertheless, in order to meet concerns expressed by some Members of Parliament, like Mr Lange, as regards further steps in the case of emission limit values, it may be possible to arrive at an acceptable formula in the light of subsequent negotiations. The Commission will consider the most appropriate ways to take into account the evolution of exhaust and noise emission limits. For example, the question of possible further reductions in emission limit values could be dealt with in the report to be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council under Article 2 of the Commission proposal.
I am convinced that further work in close cooperation with the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, will lead to a balanced solution offering a clear benefit for the environment and the internal market, while minimising additional burdens to SMEs.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 6, 14, 18, 19, 22, 27 to 29, 37, 39, 41 and 44. Furthermore, the Commission can accept in principle Amendments Nos 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 23, 35 and 36. In addition, the Commission can accept in part Amendments Nos 10, 43 and 45. On the contrary, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24 to 26, 30 to 34, 38, 40, 42 and 46 to 50."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples