Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.14.2-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Miller, as well as the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, whose work has enabled this case to be brought to a successful conclusion. As you no doubt recall, this proposal for a directive on the construction of buses and coaches gave rise to lengthy and involved debates at first reading. This draft has been before us for three years already. We have come a long way since then. A consensus has been reached between the Council, Parliament and Commission. As well as the institutions, the various parties involved such as bus and coach manufacturers, public transport operators and user groups, including those which represent passengers with reduced mobility, have also arrived at a consensus. That is why we welcome the work of the rapporteur, who succeeded in bringing together some often divergent interests. It is now possible for the proposal to be adopted quickly, which will allow the safety of buses and their passengers to be improved.
The Commission can accept the eight amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, either in full or in principle.
Amendments Nos 1, 7 and 8 are acceptable as they stand. Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 5, which relate to the permissible slope of the bus’s floor area, are acceptable in principle, but may, of course, be reviewed at the drafting stage. Amendment No 4, which gives a list of people with reduced mobility, will most probably be challenged by Member States, as it introduces the risk of excluding some categories of users. Would it not be better retain the general definition, which is, for that very reason, more comprehensive? Finally, Amendment No 6, which seeks to change the figure of the wheelchair, is acceptable in principle, but not in the form proposed in the report. The reference to an ISO standard or to an authorised diagram, as the rapporteur proposes in Amendment No 10, would be preferable, bearing in mind, however, that we must ensure that size, shape and weight of the wheelchair, together with its occupant, are compatible with the physical characteristics of access areas.
On the other hand, the Commission does not wish to repeat the debate held at first reading on the regulatory approach to vehicles. We do not, therefore, endorse the idea of challenging the timeliness of a directive, by which I am referring to Amendment No 9. To sum up, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 in principle and can accept Amendments Nos 1, 7 and 8."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples