Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-05-Speech-3-228"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Measure to enhance road safety (SAFETY) and security measures in the transport sector, including the financing thereof (SECURITY) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060405.20.3-228"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-05-Speech-3-2292
lpv:speaker	lp:Paolo Costa2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; La Margherita (2005-02-18--2008-02-06)3 substitute; PECH (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2004-07-28--2007-01-15)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; IMCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 chair; TRAN (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in my language, the word ‘ ’ covers the meaning of the two English words ‘safety’ and ‘security’. It seems to me, however, that today’s confusion cannot be ascribed purely to the linguistic factor. These two subjects are too important to be tackled together. I must admit, however, that when it comes to the ‘safety’ aspect of the word, it is thanks to the contribution of Parliament that fundamental progress has been made with regard to driving time and driving licences. I would like to make just one point: the greatest contribution we could probably make to road safety would be to make less people use the roads. If we worked harder and faster on the third railway package, therefore, we would perhaps succeed in making a more significant contribution to safety than any of the other proposals that have been illustrated today. Coming, though, to the ‘security’ sense of the word, and to its financing – which is a problem that concerns me directly, as rapporteur of this measure – I ask myself the following question: ‘Can we proceed with amending the regulation in accordance with the standards that define security without answering the question our citizens are asking, namely who will pay for it?’ This strikes me as the key point. It is rather difficult to answer ‘yes’, partly because we have also come to realise that security is a single issue, that there are not 25 types of security and that it is not possible for each Member State to establish its own security. If, however, a single security exists for all countries, then we cannot do anything other than define standard, potentially uniform, measures, and establish in a clear, transparent way how to pay for it. There could then also be additional measures, which are more stringent and apply only in particular countries. Even in this case, though, how can we guarantee that these independent measures do not interfere negatively with, and have repercussions on, the security of the other countries? While we wait, reality moves on. What we have today is, in fact, a basic security financed through fares and extra ticket costs, and more or less cofinanced by the Member States according to the levels of security they wish to establish. This system must be regulated differently. I think that the Member States should at least pay for the surplus measures and that it is essential that there be clarity regarding the basic level of cofinance between operator or, better, user Member States. We must follow these principles at least in order to continue our work."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph