Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-348"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-04-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090422.54.3-348"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-04-22-Speech-3-3492
lpv:speaker	lp:Dirk Sterckx2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Open VLD (2008-04-18--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; 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; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"I should like to thank Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău for the work they have done, and I think that Mrs Ţicău is right to be strict about access to the market in her report. If you run a transport company, you have to observe a number of rules and, as Mr Grosch has already stated, PO box companies have to go, as they are the cause of a lot of the abuse that goes on. That is Mrs Ţicău’s report, then. So why can we not give the companies to which strict rules apply a European market to work on? Moving on to Mr Grosch’s report, I would have liked to have seen a clarification, not a restriction. As such, the majority of our group cannot endorse the compromise Mr Grosch has struck. We are actually taking a step backwards, in that we are once again restricting the scope of hauliers within the European market. There is no prospect of an opening up in 2014, as per Parliament’s request. The Council disagrees, but I think this is one concession too many. We are, in actual fact, arranging empty journeys for lorries - something which, in this day and age, simply should not be done. I doubt whether those Member States that have now opened up their cabotage markets to each other are still able to do so under this regulation, should they wish to do this on a bilateral basis. I also wonder how Member States that claim that monitoring is difficult will now manage, because it is not that much easier. It is the same in all the countries, but it is difficult to monitor and I should like to see if the police authorities are up to this. If the cost of wages and social dumping are the reason, why do I not get to see documents in which the French authorities reprimand French customers for using too many Belgian lorry drivers? They are more expensive than the French. Why do I then hear stories of Belgian lorry drivers who, for relatively minor offences, are kept under arrest in the United Kingdom? For there, too, drivers are cheaper than in Belgium. So, if social abuse is supposed to be a reason, it is certainly not the case here. The upshot, in my view, is that we will be taking a step backwards in relation to the internal market. Tomorrow, we will be approving intelligent transport systems, which means that we are saying that communications technology and information technology lead to more effective freight transport. We then say, though, that we will be restricting this for political reasons. This is very unfortunate and I will therefore oppose the agreement which Parliament will, unfortunately, be approving by a majority."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph