Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.4.1-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall read out on Mr Vermeer's behalf the speech that he wanted to deliver. That Mr Vermeer is unable to attend today is due to the HGV traffic that is not allowed to drive on Sundays but that subsequently causes so much traffic on Mondays that he is unable to get here on time.
It is not the purpose of this proposal, namely the harmonisation of driving bans on the Trans-European Network, that is called into question by my group, but the way in which this is done. A general expansion of weekend driving bans is a very sensitive issue in our group. A driving ban, however useful it may be, has a drastic effect on the principle of the free movement of goods and hits the peripheral countries the hardest. Especially for those countries, the grapes are sour because the benefits of the internal market are not always that evident to them. The introduction of a driving ban simply causes a greater traffic flow on a limited number of days and with it, an entirely different traffic pressure, even in the so-called transit countries. The irony of this artificial state of affairs is that the Member States on the TEN network, which often enjoys EU funding, are entitled to introduce driving restrictions without these being adequately examined by the Commission, for example, on their usefulness.
On behalf of the ELDR Group, I have therefore tabled a few amendments that should make this possible. The aim of my amendment is to allow Member States to introduce a driving ban if this is justified on the basis of various criteria, such as the environment, safety or on social grounds. This should prevent a proliferation of driving bans from being imposed. I would therefore ask for your support for Amendment No 23.
As far as the rapporteur’s Amendments Nos 4 and 13 are concerned, in which topographical reasons are given to justify driving bans, these are not acceptable to my group. What exactly is a topographical reason and how is it defined? In the explanatory note to that amendment, reference is made to the Alps. However, the Dutch polder landscape can also form a topographical motive for a driving ban, for example. This concept is, in my view, wide open to misuse. Should these Amendments Nos 4 and 13 be adopted during the vote of this report tomorrow, then I, as the shadow rapporteur, will advise my group to vote against the report as a whole. Let us leave the internal market open and not create too many restrictions or opportunities for restrictions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples