Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.6.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, there comes a time when you have to – what a shame, she is not listening when people speak, that is not good! A good Commissioner should listen! Can that be deducted from the time?
Commissioner, I actually wanted to address a minor comment to you, which applies both to this report and to the preceding one. There comes a time when you have to come to a decision, because post-Amsterdam the conciliation procedure is the great good. Parliament is obviously always pleased when the Commission fights at Parliament's side as its partner and does not necessarily rush obediently to the Council's cause. I do not believe that this is necessary here.
I wanted actually to relate this comment to the report before us. The President has read out a very laborious title. Mr President, with your permission I will simply talk about lorry inspections; that would be understood both in Regensburg and in Lübeck, and perhaps the Commission might also perhaps manage to use somewhat shorter titles.
I think that we simply cannot do enough for road traffic safety. There is a consensus on that. This directive on lorry inspections should quite simply make a contribution to this. We are seeing a slight fall in the number of those killed and injured on the roads. Nevertheless – and regrettably – where the accidents involve lorries the numbers of those both killed and injured are rising. The causes are often precisely technical defects. We must not sit back and accept this. After all, a lorry does around 150 000 kilometres a year. This is an inconceivably high number compared with a private car. When it is under a strain of this kind, maximum technical roadworthiness is required in the interests of road safety, environmental protection and not least equitable competition. Because a fleet of lorries in a poor state of technical repair should certainly not have a competitive advantage, and conversely no haulier should be punished if he keeps his lorries in optimal technical condition.
Now Europeans are obviously not so well behaved that they can manage without checks. This directive tries to cater for this problem by introducing a graduated inspection procedure until the vehicle is taken out of service. There has been a high measure of agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, apart from on one problem and that is penalties. In its common position, the Council makes no mention of any arrangements. This is obviously nonsense because if I am going to carry out inspections there have to be penalties which I can use as a threat in borderline cases. Then the Council said – and these might not be its exact words – that the penalties would be directed at the Member States. No, penalties should be directed at hauliers, lorry-owners and drivers. That is why – as discussed in the committee – I have now tabled an amendment to Amendment No 2 which contains no reference to the concept of ‘harmonisation’. I have done this in the knowledge that the Council is going some way to accommodate us and that we in turn can also then accommodate the Council, because this directive, in my view, is a logical step forwards. Nevertheless – and the Council has to be aware of this – it is of course sensible that the Member States should have to reach an agreement, sooner or later, amongst themselves in the Council about these controls and the penalties threatened, because it would be ridiculous if for example offences carried almost a prison sentence in Finland and only a small fine in a southern country, or vice versa. That would not make any sense. Neither is it very European. That is why, on the procedure, I should like to say once more that Amendment No 3 replaces Amendment No 2 which was adopted by the committee. It ought therefore to be put to the vote first tomorrow. If the Bureau, which will be chairing the vote tomorrow, could be informed of this I would be very grateful. Then we would not have any procedural problems with this.
So, put Amendment No 3 to the vote first. It would then replace Amendment No 2. This is what was discussed in the committee, and then we could have this system very quickly and not work towards a costly conciliation procedure for the sake of a solution which is in principle sensible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples