mr president i am delighted to be able to open our debate today on my report about emissions from light commercial vehicles lcvs
before i get to the detail of the text please allow me to express a few thanks first of all to the shadow rapporteurs from all of the political groups secondly to the rapporteurs and members of the committee on transport and tourism and the committee on industry research and energy for their opinions and thirdly to the commissioner and her team we have had a number of very constructive meetings about this
fourthly i would like to thank the belgian presidency for its very hard work during the trialogue negotiations finally my thanks go to jos vervloet and isobel findlay from the envi secretariat who have provided some incredible support throughout the process
in particular isobel's help on the complex comitology issues is very much appreciated
the proposed legislation has been expected ever since similar legislation was passed concerning passenger cars
personally i was not entirely convinced of the need for this legislation because most vans are bought by businesses both large and small which are already very conscious of the need for economy and fuel efficiency
because of this it has been my belief throughout the process that it is crucial to have an ambitious but realistic long-term target and an appropriate short-term target that takes into account both the needs of industry product cycles and the need for environmental improvement
it has always been the long-term target that has been the main focus throughout our debate
the commission's original proposal was one hundred and thirty-five g co km which was deemed by many sources to be simply unachievable
the lcv sector has longer development and production times than the passenger car sector
similarly lcvs as their name implies are used mainly for commercial purposes
unlike passenger cars there is less scope to modify either their shape or their weight in a bid to reduce emissions
the principal way to accomplish this in lcvs is through modification of the engines and mechanics of the vehicles a much longer and more expensive process than simply altering the body or reducing the weight of the vehicle
it should also be noted that there is already much greater penetration of diesel fuel usage in the lcv sector than in the car sector
when the commission published its original proposal many of the manufacturers made it clear that they wished to settle for nothing less than one hundred and sixty g co km a figure which in turn struck most of us in parliament as being far too relaxed and complacent
in the end the package that we have all agreed on and which is before you today has a fairly sensible compromise position of one hundred and forty-seven g co km
given the higher costs of reducing co in lcvs compared to cars and the longer development and production cycles needed my personal belief is that this provides a good balance between ensuring improved environmental standards on the one hand and giving a realistic and achievable target for the lcv manufacturing sector on the other
the fact that by reaching this compromise figure we are being attacked on one side as being too pro-industry and on the other as being too environmentally friendly suggests to me that possibly we have just about got the balance right
one area of the commission's proposal which all groups agreed was unworkable concerned the very complex issue of multi-stage vehicles
obviously it is unfair to penalise the manufacturers of the base vehicle when they are not responsible for what happens to the vehicle at a later stage of its production
the package that is before you today includes a very sensible proposal that the commission will review this issue before the end of the year and sets out the basis under which this review should take place
i believe that the package that we have negotiated and which will be put before parliament today as amendment fifty-eight is the best possible outcome
i am pleased to have the support i hope of most of the main political groups
it balances the need for improved environmental standards with realistic and achievable targets that will not prejudice manufacturing industry nor pose a risk to jobs in the union
generally i am not in favour of first-reading agreements believing that they are best avoided if at all possible
however in this case a first-reading agreement provides clarity and certainty to a sector that is still suffering in the wake of the global economic crisis whilst also setting the bar for the tough but fair environmental standards that we all wish to see
i hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the package today
