Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.6.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, everything has been said. Allow me simply to offer the Vice-President a helping hand so that she might support Amendment No 3 – which replaces No 2 – after all. In this room there are sometimes Members who say that of course it is sensible to standardise the vehicle inspections in terms of how rigorous and how comprehensive they are. But when it comes to penalties and the word ‘harmonisation’ a good many people in this room give a start – on the left and on the right of this House, both those higher up and those lower down. That is why I think that this Amendment No 3 which Mr Piecyk has drafted as rapporteur is excellent. He has completely avoided the word ‘harmonisation’. But he has said what this is all about. He has said that it cannot be right, if a commercial vehicle, a bus carrying passengers, is used when it does not comply with safety regulations – constituting danger to life and limb – for this to be regarded as a minor offence in one country while it meets with severe punishment in another. Given the danger to the passengers and also other drivers this would, however, be necessary.
That is why this is not about the question of whether we are in favour of subsidiarity or centralism. It is about the fact that it is unacceptable for us to have the common aim of road safety, but for some governments to say: well, from the point of view of penalties we regard road safety offences as being on a par with disobeying a sign to keep off the grass, while others give it the correct weighting. The first principle, Madam Vice-President, is for us all to attach the same degree of importance to the need to improve road safety. The second argument is that there must be no distortions of competition in the Community. There are definitely examples of lorries from another Member State being subjected to particularly stringent controls, having tough penalties imposed, being detained, and so on in one country while in another country the authorities could not care less. This lies at the heart of the difference between Parliament's views and the common position. We certainly believe that where the penalties – which will remain within national competence – are concerned, the Member States ought to try to reach an agreement by asking themselves the following questions: what degree of importance do I attach to danger caused by road traffic? And how am I to ensure that there is fair competition within the Community in an internal market?
That is why, Madam Vice-President, after a certain party's election victory in a large federal state you would make my evening complete if you were to say: we can accept the rapporteur's Amendment No 3!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples