Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-405"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050413.25.3-405"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, for one moment, I thought you had forgotten me. It is to me that the honour falls of being the last speaker and bringing today’s long sitting of the House to an end. Let me remind you that today has seen us voting – favourably, as it turned out – on Bulgaria and Romania, both of which possess major motor industries and are directly affected by the directive we are discussing. This proposal is of immediate relevance to product-based environmental protection, as members of the public use motorcars and light utility vehicles almost every day.
I would also like to point out that we have laid down rules elsewhere – in particular in the exhaust gas regulations – applicable to immediate effects on the environment, and to ask the Commission to get to work quickly, particularly where the Euro 5 exhaust gas standard is concerned, in order that these exhaust gases may be reduced in Europe too. I would remind them of the fine dust that is now polluting German cities in particular and is causing a number of problems.
While the approach chosen is one that is, in principle, to be welcomed, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats saw certain points as being particularly important. For a start, it is self-evident that the requirements for the components to be used must not present any risk to the public – by which we mean both drivers and pedestrians. It follows that the materials used must be both recyclable and safe, which does of course also mean that there is a need for more intensive materials research in Europe if we are to retain our leading position on the world market.
Secondly, the procedures and rules must be straightforward, transparent and practicable. What that means is that the authorities and car manufacturers must consult together in choosing one vehicle as being representative, in that it presents the greatest problems in terms of pollution. It makes no sense and would no doubt also be too bureaucratic to repeat the whole test on vehicles with only a few additional features.
Deadlines must be ambitious but also, of course, realistic, for it would make little sense to require too many alterations to existing models that are already reaching the end of their economic life cycle. This sort of environmental protection makes sense and can benefit both the public and industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples