Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-409"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-07-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:First railway package (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070710.57.2-409"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-07-10-Speech-2-4102
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Jeggle2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; FEMM (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2006-02-06--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Mr Cramer, you already know that I have not always been enthused by your report in all respects – we do not need to discuss this fact today. The report lacks balance and practical relevance. For example, it contains many provisions unrelated to the implementation of the first railway package in terms of content. Therefore, we – our coordinator Mr Jarzembowski and I – have tabled 20 amendments, only 11 of which involve the deletion of whole paragraphs. I was pleased with the outcome of the vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. The important points are, firstly, the call for the Commission to take action, without delay, against Member States who have not implemented the first and second railway packages by the specified date. Secondly, we consider it important, with regard to the financing of the further development of the European transport routes, that support be given in particular to the 30 priority trans-European network projects. Unfortunately, the complete deletion of the paragraph headed ‘Regulation of the separation between network and operation’ could not be pushed through. I reject out of hand a limitation of the choice between the various organisational models. We need solid evidence. We need to know the advantages and disadvantages of such a separation. We still need flexibility for railway undertakings. That is why we have requested a split vote. I should also like to say a few brief words about the problem of ‘gigaliners’: that is, ultra-long lorries of 60 tonnes and upwards. We cannot support Mr Cramer’s amendment concerning these in tomorrow’s vote on this report – which, after all, concerns the railway package. I do fully agree that goods belong on the railways, and thus my position may appear contradictory, but an amendment on gigaliners has no place in this report. We shall discuss this within the framework of the Ayala Sender report – when we shall also have time for the debate."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph