Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.6.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this legislation has often been referred to as the lawnmowers directive. The fact that MEPs are spending their time discussing lawnmowers will no doubt confirm the impression which too many of our constituents have about the value of our work. If so, they should think again. The blue smoke from generators, lawnmowers, pumps and so on tells its own story. The cumulative effect contributes significantly to air pollution. So, in contrast to the last debate where I argued strongly that we should emphasise the principle of subsidiarity, this is a matter which is clearly trans-boundary and for both environmental and single market reasons should be dealt with by this Parliament.
On the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy we all get used to industry representatives coming up to us and saying ‘don't do that, the time-scale is too short, the technology is not available’. So it has been a pleasure while this directive was passing through Parliament to be lobbied by one company – Honda, to which Mr Goodwill referred – which believes that the standards being proposed by the Commission do not go far enough. I realise it has its own reasons for this position. It has made the investment. It can meet the standards and it wants a competitive advantage over those who have not done the same. But is that not what we want overall? Is it not a good thing for manufacturers to be competing on the basis of setting the highest possible environmental standards?
I am sorry the committee has not accepted some of the amendments I tabled at an earlier stage. I am sorry also that too many companies in my own country have failed to look to the future and want to continue producing dirty, polluting equipment instead of investing in the future and setting the highest standards so that they can compete properly across the world.
Here in Europe we should be aiming to set these higher standards subject to the available technology. I agree with what Mr Goodwill said about chainsaws and the difficulty of reaching those standards insofar as that piece of equipment is concerned. But I also want to resist, as Mr Lange said, the Commission's proposals for averaging and banking. So far as I am concerned it allows manufacturers to continue to produce engines which do not meet the highest air quality standards and perhaps to even put new ones on the market. After all, we are not saying that the changes have to be made now. A transition period is built into the proposal to give time for re-equipment. Amendment No 18 suggests that some financial support and incentives might be given to manufacturers.
I look forward to hearing the sound of my neighbour mowing her grass – and indeed my grass too, I hope – knowing that the air will be free from pollution and that the birds will not cough and splutter in the trees around my home."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples