Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-18-Speech-3-409"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080618.29.3-409"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would also finally like to congratulate you on your new post. Congratulations, and I wish you all the best, but I would also like to express the hope that in future, we are not going to have any more nonsensical drafts from the Commission. A year ago, the Committee on Transport rejected the proposal from the Commission on road infrastructure safety management as it was too bureaucratic and, in our view, failed to generate any added value.
I still believe that the directive is superfluous and is unlikely to add any value. The road infrastructure varies very widely in the Member States and I think we should only support those Member States that need to catch up, but to do that, we do not need a directive which applies to everyone. Instead of a directive, it would be better to adopt guidelines based on existing good practice in the Member States.
That being the case, I would prefer it if we could completely reject the directive, but we will not secure a political majority in favour of that option in the House, and the Council is also insisting on rules that are devoid of content, which is why we have now agreed a compromise on the basis of the report by the Committee on Transport. This compromise essentially consists of minor changes, such as improvements to language or amendments to the annexes, which give more details about safety management procedures.
Road safety is of course a very important issue for us, but at EU level, a great deal has already been done to improve road safety, for example as regards driving and rest times, additional mirrors in lorries, tunnel safety, etc. These are areas where it is useful to have regulations at EU level. More could be done here, but only if it adds value to road safety. Due to the subsidiarity principle, however, this is not the case for road infrastructure safety, but because the Commission's proposal has been watered down, I am able to go along with it, despite my objections.
The directive only requires Member States to introduce four procedures on road infrastructure safety management, and only concerns roads that are part of the TENs. Because the annexes are not binding, Member States can arrange the requisite procedures for themselves. This means that Member States have enough leeway to retain their existing successful systems. There are no new obligations for those who already have a good management system.
We have also deleted the extensive reporting requirements the Commission was requesting, and we have prevented the scope from being extended to motorways, which was what the rapporteur wanted. Anything else would have infringed the subsidiarity principle.
Ultimately, what we have now are guidelines in the guise of a directive. This is the first time that I have ever experienced such a thing. It is a result that my group can endorse, as we only ever wanted guidelines from the outset.
May I ask that as regards Amendment 70 we take the English version as a basis, as the German version, at least, contains mistakes and I think the other language versions may need to be checked as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples