Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.4.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to join with my colleagues in thanking Stephen Hughes for the work he has done on this report. It has been a very difficult task and, excuse the pun, a difficult road for him to travel down. The overall aim of the report is to raise awareness with regard to health and safety and to prevent unfair competition.
In his report, Stephen has mentioned his concerns with regard to the common position; I share some of those concerns. There are areas that are open to improvement. However, I also expressed concerns with regard to some of the amendments adopted by the committee and to some of the stances taken within the committee. As already mentioned by some of my colleagues and, in particular, my Scottish colleague, peripheral areas of Europe would be more adversely affected than others by these restrictions. For instance, in Ireland 98% of what is manufactured is transported by road. We have a fast growing economy. It depends on a flexible and innovative transport industry. The principle was clearly established in 1993 that directives are to avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal restrictions which would affect these kind of undertakings. We must try to reduce the number of vehicles on our roads, but there is no guarantee that this directive would do that. In fact, according to information available from studies carried out by the Irish road hauliers' association it would increase the number of vehicles on the road and would neither reduce congestion nor lessen environmental damage.
The working time directive as proposed by the Council could result in higher costs for companies. Some of the amendments put forward by the rapporteur, such as Amendment No 6, are too prescriptive, while others such as Amendment No 14, are too restrictive. Amendment No 17 would impose additional obligations on Member States and would be difficult to implement. In Amendment No 19 there is a call for harmonisation of penalties. This is not something we should agree with. This matter should be left to the Member States because otherwise, as has already been seen, there would be differences in implementation of the penalties.
Finally, under Recital 14 certain conditions with regard to the average working week are not being implemented. What we are seeking is decreased administrative burdens, a more balanced proposal and fairness for all."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples