Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.13.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this legislative period finds us continuing our lawmaking efforts with something that is actually one of this House’s success stories; it is, in particular, one of Mr Rothley’s. The fact is that this House played a decisive part in bringing this legislation into being, and so it is only proper that we, in the last stage of the lawmaking process, should be pressing for further improvements to it.
Although it is a pity that solid benefits for the public should be concealed behind positively technocratic expressions like the ‘Fifth Directive relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles’, this should not prevent us from giving these successes the publicity they deserve, for we are dealing here with truly tragic cases of people who, through a road accident, have lost the wherewithal for their economic survival, their ability to work, who have been ruined by court cases lasting decades, quite simply because the accident occurred in another Member State.
What is most important is that this amending directive manages to increase the minimum cover from EUR 350 000 to EUR 1 million, to abolish derogations and improve the regime for service representatives.
One of the consequences of the internal market, of course, is that people move around more, whether they be students, tourists or engaged in providing services, and to all of these we are giving a bit more security when they cross a border in their motor vehicle. The security we are giving them is that they are, to a substantial extent, still covered by insurance when they are away from home.
What made the previous directives so successful was surely the fact that we created an unbureaucratic, uncomplicated and straightforward system, and that helped to reduce the flood of paperwork. I do, though, take Commissioner McCreevy’s call very seriously when I say that we must re-examine very thoroughly whether all the amendments we have proposed do not make matters too complex, bureaucratic and more difficult.
I do not, for example, think it makes any sense whatsoever to include trailers in the definition at the same time as making it possible for the Member States to make insurance of them optional. I also ask myself whether this directive is the right place for rules on legal costs, limitation periods and so on, when it is actually meant to deal with other cases. Although I would regard it as sensible to have an Internet site as the central source of information for accident victims, I do not imagine that a collection of accident reports in their hundreds and thousands, or even in ones and twos, on a single Internet site is something that members of the public will regard as practical or will be of real use to them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples