Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.18.1-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as I said when this regulation first came before this House, the concept of this proposal is in my view impractical, untenable and unenforceable. That is why, with the help of some of my colleagues from across the political spectrum, I have submitted an amendment to have this proposal rejected in its entirety.
I would like to focus my contribution to this debate on the very essence of what the proposal means to people in my constituency, which I am sure is mirrored across the whole of the European Union. At present bus services in rural areas, where many people are elderly and rely on public transport, are run by small and medium-sized companies, which the EU claims to be the backbone of the economy. Yet legislation like this will cripple their very existence. Proposals for rest hours will mean increased cost to the consumer and industry alike, reduced services and, in some cases, no service at all.
In the commercial sector, just-in-time delivery systems, the backbone of modern-day supply for industry, will be jeopardised. This again will mean increased cost to the consumer and industry alike. In the UK alone it is estimated that the cost of this regulation and the working time directive together will be over GBP 1 billion, and that is not my figure, it is the industry’s.
The argument of road safety used by many does not wash from my point of view. We must stop claiming that over-regulation means safer roads. The UK, with less regulation, probably has the safest roads in Europe. This proposal has little to do with road safety, and more to do with an ingrained anti-road agenda from the European Commission.
By their very nature, British Conservatives oppose such restrictive legislation being piled on business and the consumer, and we are not alone. This proposal takes no account of the need for flexibility in key areas of the transport sector, pays scant regard to the consumer and is contemptuous of the need for Europe’s industry to remain competitive. I therefore have no hesitation in urging this House to support our key amendment to reject the proposal in its entirety."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples