Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-008"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Pedestrian protection: Commitment by the European automobile industry2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020613.1.4-008"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-13-Speech-4-0092
lpv:speaker	lp:Ria Oomen-ruijten2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the rapporteur and also the European Commission. The European Commission has had the courage to present self-regulatory measures in order to get industry and governments to commit to greater pedestrian safety, which is also necessary, in fact. I come from a culture where self-regulation is very common. I am very much in favour of it, because self-regulation invariably entails the latest state of the art technology on which industry too can agree. Moreover, it can be a very quick process. The legislative process is always much more protracted. There is always one condition, namely that these self-regulatory agreements are monitored effectively. If you ask me for my personal opinion – and this is also what Mrs Petersen said –I would have been satisfied with sound self-regulatory measures, and legislation would not have been by definition necessary. However, this is what Parliament has decided and I will have to reconcile myself to this decision. A skeletal directive is what we will end up with, one that leaves open plenty of opportunities to repeatedly lay down further regulations according to the latest state of the art technology. I am such a staunch supporter of self-regulation because in my view, a number of processes in the European Commission are too slow. As a final point, I have stated in the recommendation by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy that something needs to be done about whiplash, although this is not at all related to this issue, but rather to a safety issue which also robs a huge number of people of their health. Moreover, it incurs a high level of costs in our society. Not for nothing have I included this as my final point. I know, after all, that far too little is happening in this area. I have also asked questions in writing, upon which I receive the response that something will indeed be done. We have already discussed it in the context of the Fourth Framework Programme. Why does the handling of all these issues that are related to preventing accidents and preventing extra expenses in this area take up so much time? This has been going on since the Fourth Action Programme; we are meanwhile looking at the Sixth Research and Development Action Programme. Surely, something else should replace it. I would ask the Commissioner not only to enter into consultation with industry very promptly in order to do something about this pedestrian protection, possibly by means of self-regulation, I would also ask him to tackle these other problems too."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph