Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-508"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.41.2-508"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Rack for his hard work. Urban mobility is a complicated issue for policy preparation at European level. It is not easy to demarcate responsibilities and that can be seen in the report we are debating here.
On the one hand, the report states in various places that the European Union has a role in the realisation of urban mobility plans, and then elsewhere in the report it states that urban mobility is a responsibility of the European cities and local authorities and, on the grounds of the subsidiarity principle, the European Union should only have a limited regulatory role. In short, weighing up responsibilities in this area is difficult. I do think though that the rapporteur, Mr Rack, has dealt with this issue well and has worded the text well with regard to the subsidiarity principle.
I have a couple of criticisms, however. Firstly, I think that the report has become too detailed. This creates the impression that it is possible to design a European framework that could be used to solve all the problems in all European cities. I understand the detailed list of topics to be considered for harmonisation and the list of areas for action and they are well intentioned, but I question whether we can take them much further. I think that a general approach would have been more practical. This would have put more emphasis on exchanging best practices and on technological developments in the area of urban mobility. I realise that this approach is less ambitious, but I think that we should remember that urban mobility is a matter for the European cities and local authorities.
What is more, the list of topics for harmonisation also contains some social norms. This does not seem a good idea to me. Social norms, such as the mobility of disadvantaged travellers, are very closely bound to individual Member States and so are better not harmonised or standardised.
Despite these criticisms, I will vote for the report. The fact is that Mr Rack has succeeded in clearly emphasising in the report that a safe, sustainable and effective urban mobility structure is a matter for the cities and local authorities of Europe and I think that this is where the great merit of this report lies. The European Union can extend a helping hand by means of directed funding and the exchange of relevant information, but EU regulations are not needed in this area, nor are they desirable.
I would like to finish by saying that we should not lose sight in all this of the fact that the responsibility for urban transport systems remains with the towns and cities of Europe. They will have to develop systems and work effectively with all the relevant authorities. Finally, I would point out that the success of these transport systems stands or falls with citizen participation. They also have a responsibility to contribute to the goals of the urban mobility plans: sustainable, safe and reliable transport in urban areas."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples