Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-11-23-Speech-3-012-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20161123.7.3-012-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to address you on the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive ahead of our final plenary vote this afternoon here in Strasbourg. This proposal represents three years of work for me personally and even longer for many others in the Commission and beyond. I would like to thank the political Group shadow rapporteurs for their close cooperation throughout the work on the proposal, the Commission team for their technical knowledge and irrepressible optimism and the Dutch Presidency for the good spirit in which these difficult negotiations were conducted. On the last day of the Dutch Presidency, 30 June 2016, we reached an agreement on this challenging legislative proposal after five months of tough trilogues and many technical drafting meetings.
The political backdrop has changed dramatically over the past three years, with the issue of air quality moving up the public agenda in an unprecedented way, culminating in the VW scandal and the focus on the issue of real-driving emissions. Perhaps there is also a recognition that we have spent the past decade or more concentrating so much on CO2 that we have neglected air quality. We have known for some time that Europe needs to take action to clean up its air, and I believe strongly that this vote is a step in the right direction. It is not a perfect solution but it will go a long way to making important health improvements for our citizens.
Air pollution is the number one environmental cause of death in the EU. More than 400 000 of our citizens die prematurely each year and millions more suffer debilitating illness requiring medication and hospitalisation. This has an enormous human and economic cost, with tens of billions of euros in days lost at work and even more spent on healthcare bills, particularly in a country like my own where healthcare costs are met directly through our national system. Air pollution also hits the natural environment through eutrophication and acid deposition. So in December 2013 the Commission published its clean air package the central plank of which was the NEC Directive and the setting of emissions reduction targets in all the Member States for 2030.
This proposal has had a difficult passage through the legislative process. We had the European elections shortly after it was published, a new Commission taking office and a real fight from this House to keep the directive on the table after a suggestion that it might be withdrawn from the work programme. More recently, we have had to contend with the UK referendum on EU membership and securing a deal in the difficult days – for me at least – after the vote to leave.
I still feel strongly, as your rapporteur, that this is a key issue which is best tackled at EU level. Simply put, air pollution does not stop at Member State borders. I strongly believe that better regulation and good air quality are not mutually exclusive and that is why I fought so hard to keep this proposal alive and get it onto the books. There will be some people here who will say that the deal is not ambitious enough and that we should have fought longer and harder for even higher targets. The fact is, however, that this is a negotiation. Each side has its positions and, whilst there is always room for improvement, we have to be cognisant of the political reality and not allow perfection to become the enemy of good.
Parliament’s starting position on Annex II was in line with the Commission’s impact—assessed proposal, which estimated the emission reduction commitments would result in a 52% health improvement, whereas the Council’s figures, set out as part of a general approach, would have resulted in a 48% reduction in premature mortality. In the final, hard-fought agreement the overall level of ambition on Annex II takes us to just under 50%.
Concerning the targets for 2025, the final compromise specifies that Member States may follow a non-linear trajectory if that is economically or technically more efficient, provided that, as from 2025, it converges progressively with the linear trajectory and does not affect any reduction commitment for 2030. In addition, Member States would have to explain the reasons for any deviation from the linear trajectory, as well as the measures necessary to return to it.
On flexibility provisions, Parliament accepted that Member States should be granted some flexibility in achieving the 2030 targets but tightened the wording proposed by the Council to ensure that the provisions were not open to abuse. Parliament accepted that methane be excluded from the scope of the legislation on condition that the Commission confirmed, in accordance with its right of initiative, that it would carry out a review with regard to methane even if it was not specifically in the directive.
This issue should never be about playing to the gallery: it should be about real action for our citizens. As the rapporteur, I am fully supportive of this final text and consider it to be an ambitious, fair and workable agreement for reducing the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution. It is not a perfect agreement but, as a Brit working in Brussels, I am not sure there is any such thing, ever. Compromise is key to any negotiation and any final agreement. Indeed, having a seat at the table and being able to influence the discussions is a precious thing. So I urge you all to vote in favour of this deal today."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples