Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-005"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020613.1.4-005"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, every year, 42 000 people die on the EU’s roads. This is a very big political issue for people within the EU. In the White Paper on Transport, the Commission writes that we must halve the number of people killed by 2010. In that case, we must be active, not passive. We must take all kinds of measures at all levels. Everyone must help, especially industry, because we know that this is what consumers are demanding. The case for safety is self-evident.
Within the Group of the Party of European Socialists, we should like to have gone still further in certain sections by, for example, placing significantly sharper emphasis upon the exclusive merits of the tests developed by the EEVC and by setting a clear subsidiary objective with a view to obtaining a straight line of development in pedestrian protection between now and 2010. The Group of the Party of European Socialists also wants the Commission to table its framework directive immediately, and preferably before the end of the year. That is important if the Commission wants to show that it is serious about the issue.
As I say, this is a very controversial matter. We have now reached a compromise and shall therefore support this in order to obtain as much backing as possible for the demand for a framework directive as the best solution where the issue of road safety is concerned.
My group will therefore only support the committee’s proposal in the report, and I would urge other MEPs to do the same. We approve the compromise which, for the sake of road users, I am pleased that we were able to negotiate.
How, then, must cars be designed so that they cause as little harm as possible to unprotected road users? The proposal for a voluntary agreement which we have obtained from the Commission and which the automobile industry has negotiated is inadequate. It is amazing that the Commission has seen fit to accept it in its current form. It is not always clear how it is to be implemented, and the EEVC tests are not taken seriously, in spite of the fact that they have been developed over a period of more than 22 years.
We are concerned here with survival on the roads and life in our society, and we must therefore be careful. The subject has been difficult to deal with, and I wish to thank all the shadow rapporteurs in the committee for a very successful piece of work which has demanded a great deal from us all. There have been many different opinions on the subject, many lobbyists and many points of view from the committees. It is now important to proceed on the basis of road safety and consumer demands.
We had three alternative responses to the Commission. The first was to accept the voluntary agreement. The second was to recommend a detailed directive, stating exactly how cars are to be designed. The third was to recommend a framework directive.
The committee does not believe that the voluntary agreement is sufficient. It is not provide enough certainty and does not offer scope for any grassroots parliamentary supervision of how the automobile industry assumes its responsibility. It is insufficiently binding, and its processes insufficiently transparent.
The committee therefore proposes a framework directive, as mentioned by the Commission too in its communication. It means that we in the political assemblies establish the objectives, whereupon experts oversee the implementation under the supervision, and with the participation, of the Commission.
The framework directive we are now proposing and calling for has a number of components. The objective is that, by 2010, all models of car should meet the requirements of the four EEVC documents. This process must be initiated now. The EEVC is the institution that has made the most progress in researching road safety throughout the world, especially in the area of pedestrian protection. We are, however, able to envisage other methods of testing which provide at least the same level of protection for pedestrians. There must of course be effective tests that influence car design.
We also want the process to be assessed regularly, with annual reports sent to the European Parliament. In that way, we shall be part of the process and be able to check that the goals we have set are really being met. We want the Member States, through their type approval authorities, to help assess how the framework directive is being implemented. We also believe that the EEVC has made the most progress when it comes to methods of testing and that it can make further progress in this area.
These are the demands made by the committee. We await confirmation from the Commission and Commissioner Liikanen that the latter will be tabling a proposal for a framework directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples