Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.4.1-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, this report is very straightforward: at present, directives on summer time only last for five years, and then have to come back to Parliament to be renewed. What this report is suggesting is that those arrangements be made permanent, so that we have summer time in place in perpetuity, as it were, rather than its having to be ratified by this Parliament every five years.
There is no good reason not to accept that in principle. Indeed, there are many very strong arguments in favour of having summer time. These arguments include less energy consumption; transport; hotels and restaurants, which have found planning easier; leisure activities; increasing the quality of life; and helping to prevent disruption of people's bio-rhythms. Most Member States accept and want summer time, and thus this report is not at all controversial.
The advantage of making summer time a permanent arrangement would be to make planning easier. Particular sectors involved in this, for example, IT and computers, transport, communications, air and rail, have said to us and to the Commission that they would find it very helpful to know that there will be summer time every year, that it will be permanent, so they can make forward-planning arrangements.
There is also a good argument in terms of the single market, where again similar planning considerations apply. In terms of the substance of the report, what is being suggested is that the current arrangements, with summer time starting on the last Sunday in March and ending on the last Sunday in October, remain in place and are made permanent arrangements.
However, amendments have been put forward calling for a review and for a report to be produced at the end of five years. As the rapporteur, I would recommend that these amendments be supported as they make a lot of sense.
The main argument in favour of these amendments and of a report at the end of five years actually concerns enlargement of the European Union, which, following the Nice Summit, is particularly apposite and appropriate. The point is that if new Member States join us they may not have existing arrangements which conform with what we are proposing, and they may well need time to come into line with our arrangements and to bring about the sort of harmonisation we are proposing.
In view of the changes that we will very likely be undergoing, it would not be a very good idea to introduce permanent arrangements now, with no opportunity for a review. That is the strongest argument in favour of having a review and therefore supporting the amendments to that effect. There are other issues we would still like to look at, issues like energy consumption and health and safety, as they relate to summer time; but the strongest argument is undoubtedly that we want to allow new Member States the opportunity to come into line with the arrangements.
So, I would ask Parliament, when the vote takes place, to support all these amendments so that we can have the best possible arrangements for the existing Member States and for future Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples