Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.11.3-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Vermeer for his work, as well as the rapporteurs for the committees involved, Mr Staes and Mr Harbour, for their efforts to ensure that this proposal could be produced quickly.
Given the importance of this proposal to road safety and the timetable laid down for the application of the tests, as well as the consultation on the possible initiatives in the field of protecting pedestrians which preceded this proposal, the Commission hopes that it will be approved at first reading.
Mr President, I would once again like to thank Mr Vermeer and all the honourable Members for their work.
A year ago, the European Parliament presented to Commissioner Liikanen its opinion on the Commission's Communication of July 2001. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur on that occasion, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, and all the Members of the European Parliament for the efforts they have put in to this issue.
In its resolution, the European Parliament essentially made two requests: firstly, with regard to form, Parliament called for framework legislation to be proposed in this field, including a clear and realistic timetable for the application of mid-term and final objectives, as well as the methods for monitoring its application; secondly, with regard to content, it requested, as a long term objective, the application as from 2010 of the four tests recommended by the European Enhanced Safety Vehicle Committee or other tests which would offer the same level of protection for pedestrians.
The Commission's proposal for a Directive of 19 February this year is intended to respond to Parliament’s wishes. The report by Mr Vermeer does not actually question the central elements of that Commission proposal. The amendments he proposes clarify or improve the text.
Amendments Nos 1, 2, 5 and 7 insist that the proposal is one element of a broader range of measures needed to guarantee a high level of protection for pedestrians, which includes active safety measures and changes to infrastructures. The Commission agrees with and accepts these suggestions.
Amendments Nos 3, 6, 8 and 16 are intended to clarify that the problem of pedestrian protection can be dealt with through passive safety measures or combining active and passive safety measures, and we also accept these amendments because we share the rapporteur’s approach.
I can say the same with regard to Amendments Nos 9, 10 and 11, which refer to the application of the directive, obliging the Commission to inform the legislator with regard to the monitoring of that directive within a specified time period and specifying the comitology procedure to be followed with a view to the modification of the directive if that modification is restricted to introducing passive safety measures.
Finally, we accept Amendment No 4, which requests that the Commission examine the viability of extending the scope of the Directive to vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes in the future.
In summary, the Commission accepts all the amendments presented by the Committee on Transport, as well as Amendment No 16. However, we cannot accept Amendments Nos 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples