Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-311"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.12.2-311"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Swoboda for the work he has carried out, although having said that, I must tell him that I cannot agree to his suggestion or to what he says in his report, because the Protocol is categorical on this matter.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, starting from the premise that there can always be divergent legal interpretations, as I freely admit, I feel that the provisions of Protocol No 9, Article 11 state that a review should be carried out, that equivalent measures should be proposed and that the objective is NOx emissions. They also state that, if we want to continue improving NOx emissions, our only option is to remove the 108% ceiling because, if we maintain this ceiling, there is no incentive to improve environmental quality with regard to emissions by European hauliers transiting through Austria.
I therefore urge Parliament to support the Commission proposal and to reject – I am sorry, Mr Swoboda, but for the first time we cannot agree – Mr Swoboda’s proposal.
Article 11 of Protocol No 9 discusses NOx pollution.. Nowhere does it mention noise or any other type of pollution. The objective of Article 11 is to limit gas emissions and NOx emissions and nowhere does it mention any other types of pollution that could have been suggested but which, at the time, were not suggested and were not included.
Furthermore, when Article 11 discusses a revision – and I am here attempting to answer what was said earlier – the Commission is not trying to steamroller nor to exceed the legal obligations that bind us all, but to adhere strictly to the provisions of Article 11 of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession, in other words, to undertake a revision, to see precisely how it has developed. And yet people are suggesting that we are proposing equivalent measures in order to reduce NOx emissions.
Please read it. I requested the text in order to read it out to you. Unfortunately I do not have it here with me, but I can quote you part of the text, which states that, pursuant to Article 71, which covers codecision, it authorises the Council and now Parliament – following recent changes to the Treaty codecision applies – to adopt Community measures that – and I quote verbatim – “guarantee equivalent protection of the environment, in particular, a 60% reduction in pollution”.
Ladies and gentlemen, I must tell you that we are not trying to steamroller or to exceed the provisions of Protocol No 9 to Austria’s Act of Accession. I fully realise that there may be difficulties and I also know that Austria is suffering as a result of the vehicles transiting through it, as are other countries, which may, incidentally, suffer from other types of problem too. I also understand that regions such as the Alpine regions and other particularly sensitive areas of the European Union can and should be given special protection where transport is concerned, road transport above all. Not the whole of Austria, however, which is what this Protocol refers to. The Alpine regions are a part of Austria, but not only of Austria.
To this end, the principle of ecopoints – let me make this quite clear – has been positive and has reduced NOx emissions by more than 50%. We have not reached the ceiling of 60%, but a reduction of over 50% has been achieved. I stated, although I did not give a firm commitment, that I intend to propose, as stated in the White Paper on transport policy – which I hope you will soon be able to read, that for particularly sensitive areas such as the Alps, measures must be taken to limit the potentially harmful effects for the environment.
The system of ecopoints itself could be one solution. Perhaps. I am not saying that it is the solution, but it could be one. There must be an ecopoint system – which leads me to the final point – that really works because this, Mr Swoboda, is the problem and this is another point on which I disagree with you.
You say that with a ceiling of 108%, hauliers still see a benefit, for the moment, in improving the environmental quality of their lorries. You are wrong, Mr Swoboda. It is not in their interest at all, because if their ceiling is 108% why should they make improvements when, with this number of trips they reach a ceiling that they cannot raise by reducing emissions, since they cannot travel more often without penalties being imposed on them?
At the moment, the two clauses contradict each other, which is why we are proposing that they be removed. If we want to continue improving emissions, the 108% clause must be withdrawn, because otherwise, some of the better lorries might stop transiting through Austria because they have too many ecopoints and lack transit rights as a result of this 108%. This could lead to the use of lorries that pollute more. This is of no importance: it is no longer in anyone’s interest to improve the quality of their emissions because the ceiling is set at 108%. This is why we are proposing that it be removed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples