Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.9.3-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I have a few points to make, but I can see that the debate has hardly engendered rapt enthusiasm among the packed ranks of Members so I will be as brief as possible and let everybody get away for their dinner.
Secondly, I have a particular problem with the so-called Table 1a amendment, again based on the Bodensee limits, but even stricter. Again it would be a barrier to trade. However, I would say to our colleagues on the Bodensee that, if there is a problem in this particular stretch of water, then, firstly, there is no evidence that it is caused by recreational craft and, secondly, that if there is a difficulty it can be solved by local measures in the area of Lake Constance. Speed and navigational limits could be imposed, and I entirely support their right to do that. But do not saddle the rest of Europe with unenforceable limits just to solve a particular problem that the German and Austrian authorities might have.
I have looked quite extensively at the limits proposed in that table with boat-users' representatives and representatives from industry, and there are no commercially available engines on the market that meet those limits at the moment. Obviously technology could be developed further, but it would require the use of catalytic converter technology, which is extremely difficult in a marine environment.
By all means let the research go ahead, let us look at the issue again in a few years, but please do not try and saddle the rest of Europe with unenforceable limits. All that would happen – because there are no retrospective elements – is that, as has happened on the Bodensee, the whole of Europe would become pretty much a museum for old engines. The companies making new engines go out of business, but those refurbishing old engines continue to make a lot of money. The engine could be old, polluting or spilling oil into the water but, as long as it was in existence at the time the limits were introduced, it would be perfectly legal. It is completely self-defeating to impose unachievable limits. I would strongly recommend the House to vote against those amendments tomorrow.
I wish to begin by thanking the Commissioner and all those who have taken an interest in the report for being here this evening.
It might be a minor subject, but it is very important to those involved in the recreational boating industry and those many thousands of people across Europe who also indulge their hobby of boating. Many of the problems apparent in the legislation at first reading have been substantially resolved by the Council at second reading. Most of the retrospective elements in the proposal at first reading have now been removed and I can broadly support the Commission's proposals at second reading, albeit with a few riders.
I tabled a few amendments for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, some of which were accepted. Most of the technical amendments we put forward were accepted.
I shall just run through a few of the problems that I still see with the legislation. I continue to have doubts about the effectiveness of a regulatory committee, particularly one empowered to alter quite important items of the directive such as Froude numbers. The committee supported my recommendations on that and the amendments are up for vote tomorrow.
I continue to believe that craft built for users' own use should be exempted for five years, provided they are not placed on the market. This directive was introduced under single-market legislation and it is self-evident that if those craft are not intended to be placed on the market, then they cannot affect the single market.
The issue of in-use compliance testing is a particularly thorny one. I understand that at some stage the Commission will be coming back with proposals on that. I hope it will consider that issue very carefully. The last thing we want is an extremely bureaucratic system imposed on the boat owners and users of Europe. It needs to be very simple and effective and, above all, free of charge to those who have boats at the moment.
Finally, I should like to tell our German colleagues that a number of amendments – I call them the Bodensee amendments because they are the result of lobbying from the Lake Constance authorities – have been tabled. There are broadly two categories of amendments.
Firstly, those tabled to allow Member States to set their own limits in particular local circumstances. I am not usually against Member States derogating from European regulations, but if we are going to produce a directive whose specific purpose is to permit a single market across Europe and then introduce specific exemptions into the directive, that would defeat the whole point of having it in the first place."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples