Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-145"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-04-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Road transport2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050411.18.1-145"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-04-11-Speech-1-1462
lpv:speaker	lp:Corien Wortmann-kool2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; ECON (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as part of the Lisbon Agenda, this House seeks to do away with unnecessary rules, to bring about greater flexibility, and to reduce bureaucracy. That does mean, though, that I am dissatisfied with the position adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism in respect of the Regulation on driving times and rest periods. Road safety requires that driving times and rest periods be enforced more effectively, but a good number of proposed changes go well beyond that and cannot be implemented. Some Members have already mentioned the compulsory installation of the digital tachograph under the 3.5 tonne mark. That is, of course, unworkable in practice. Equally, it is not viable to install digital tachographs in existing vehicles, because this is often technically impossible, and therefore also undesirable. Thirdly, things have to become more practical and the administrative burden must be cut back. Eleven hours of sleep at night, instead of twelve, is more than enough. That is also the Council’s view, and I hope that Parliament adopts the same view by rejecting the first part of Amendment 62. Road checks up to 28 days do not benefit road safety and also lead to unnecessary bureaucracy. The Council proposal is better in this respect too, and I therefore hope that Mr Markov will be somewhat more obliging towards the Council in those areas. Finally, if we want safer transport, we have to encourage, rather than discourage, the doubling of crew in long-distance transport. In the run-up to the plenary vote, I should like to urge you to reject the proposal on the said points, because those measures unnecessarily push up the costs for what are often small businesses. If the outcome of the vote in the plenary meeting is not considerably better than in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, it may be wise to fall back on existing legislation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph