Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-370"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.11.3-370"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur and the committee for their good work. Mrs Breyer’s report went a long way towards further improving the Commission’s proposal at first reading, which took place in December of last year.
The limit values which have been set for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air are based upon the World Health Organisation’s latest recommendations and are aimed at achieving a high level of protection of people’s health throughout the Union. Adoption of this directive would mean that the Union would take the lead internationally where limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide are concerned.
I want to begin by explaining the Commission’s views on Amendments 2 and 3. These concern the issue of providing information to the public, something which is of the greatest importance. As you perhaps know, the Commission has now, in the course of the week, adopted a new directive which will further improve access to environmental information. The Commission approves Amendment 2, which expressly mentions the Internet. Amendment 3 (1) refers to the fact that the Member States should make a special effort to inform those who are affected by the extensions to the time limits within which the limit values for benzene are to be complied with. The Commission agrees in principle with this requirement, but the common position expressed in Article 8.3 of Directive 96/62/EC, that is to say the framework directive on air quality, already obliges the Member States to compile this information and make it available to the public. In order for the Commission to be able to approve Amendment 3 (1), the latter must therefore be substantially reworded. Amendment 3 (2) contains a demand for free public access to the Member States’ documentation concerning the selection of places from which to take samples. In spite of the fact that the Member States already have this obligation under the Århus Convention, the Commission approves the Amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 1 and 4 which both concern the Commission’s review of the Directive in 2004. The review will form part of the first report on the new integrated programme for clean air, which the Commission is in the process of drawing up. The common position already states that the purpose of the review is to study the latest results and, if need be, further improve protection. Because indoor air pollution can cause significant health problems, the Commission will take account of this issue in the review. Amendment 1 may therefore be approved in principle, but must be reworded.
I turn finally to Amendment 4, which concerns an important issue. The most difficult point in the negotiations in the Council was the limit value for benzene and the time limit for achieving this. Against the background of the results of a current investigation into benzene, mainly the southern Member States considered that they were uncertain of being able to achieve the limit value of 5 g/m3 by 2010. Despite this, Article 3.2 of the common position offers only
possibility for extending the time limit by five years under certain conditions. Moreover, a concentration of 10 g/m3 must not be exceeded during that period. I would emphasise that this is in line with Amendment 22, tabled at Parliament’s first reading. Only through an addendum to Article 7.3, in which it is expressly stated that the Commission can propose further extensions in the light of the results of the 2004 review, was it possible for this agreement to come about. From a purely legal point of view, this clause does not lead to the Commission’s right of initiative being limited or otherwise affected, but may be seen as an important part of the final compromise in the Council. According to Amendment 4, the clause ought not to be there, something which could jeopardise the agreement with the Council. The Commission considers that the compromise to which this could lead would involve unnecessary delay in adopting this important directive in which, for the first time ever, limit values are established for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air. The Commission is therefore unable to approve Amendment 4.
Finally, I want to say that I believe the common position constitutes a valuable compromise to which I hope that the whole Parliament will agree, without the need for major changes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples