Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.4.1-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Savary, for the subtle and skilful way in which he has dealt with such a delicate, difficult and complex issue, on which, as has been said, there have already been two previous failures with different reports presented on the subject.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you very much, Mr Savary. I hope that Parliament will finally adopt the Savary report tomorrow since I believe it to be balanced and I believe it is the best report we could have achieved for both sides.
We all know that the health of the road transport sector is fundamental to the fluidity of intra-Community trade and the European economy, and that we are talking about one of the essential freedoms which form the fundamental pillars of the internal market and of the constitution of the Communities. At the same time, we know that the sector is experiencing difficult times: the pressure of competition – which is very strong – the congestion problems on many routes, the difficulties of crossing certain points – such as the Alps – concerns about road safety and strong social pressure.
These problems do not just distort the image of the sector, but they are real problems which may become worse as a result of enlargement. That is why the Commission stressed the urgent need to adopt a series of measures for a Community strategy to increase the coherence of the road transport sector and to strengthen the internal market within that sector.
The honourable Members know all of these measures presented by the Commission – many of them during the French Presidency – which were also debated in part and which formed part of our analysis of the White Paper. The proposal on traffic restrictions we are discussing today must be viewed in this context.
I strongly believe that it is important to introduce Community rules in this area and to organise weekend restrictions for heavy goods vehicles for the whole of the Union. Seven of the fifteen States already impose restrictions for certain categories of vehicle. The lack of coordination of this type of measure hinders the functioning of the internal market in road transport, and the Commission and the majority of States are in favour of common rules which establish a durable, clear and transparent system and which provides, as has been said, a combination and a difficult balance between two opposing interests: the citizens’ right to enjoy roads at weekends which are not entirely congested and the freedom of transit of goods across the Union.
The Commission’s current amended proposal has attempted to respond to the initial objections, by clearly indicating that it applied solely to heavy goods vehicles on international routes and on the European transport network. It therefore still falls to the Member States to impose restrictions of differing durations on all roads outside this network which include the other national roads. The proposal harmonises the timetable for weekend restrictions, but does not jeopardise the current restrictions in the large majority of Member States. It also establishes a system of notification of the days, including holidays, on which the Member States propose to impose restrictions. I am therefore replying to the question by Mr Jarzembowski and I thank him for his support. In principle, we agree with Mr Savary’s request and there are just a few remaining questions with regard to the application of a cost-benefit analysis and with regard to the intensity of the proposed information mechanism.
Turning now to specific amendments, the majority can be accepted, specifically twenty of them. But there are some which we must reject, namely No 32, simply because it rejects our proposal. We also reject Amendments Nos 4, 13, 35 and 38, since they allow States to introduce a restriction and simply inform the Commission and thus the other States and their transport workers. We believe that this shows an excessive degree of inflexibility which cannot be accepted and that the comitology system is adequate and that it maintains and offers guarantees to everybody. Neither can we support Amendments Nos 24 to 28 or Amendments Nos 30, 36, 37 and 40, which introduce an excessively restrictive approach, which would harm the balance and the quality of the proposal. Amendments Nos 18, 29 and 31 would add additional requirements which the Commission cannot accept, because they are disproportionate to the proposed objective; I am referring to burdens such as the compilation of statistics, lists of infringements and fines, and going further on certain aspects of road safety, not to mention the internal market. Finally, we reject Amendments Nos 2, 23, 25 and part of 39, since we do not believe them to be appropriate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like once again to thank Mr Savary for his tireless work. We must deal with this report with enthusiasm and not become discouraged, because the positions seem so opposed that an agreement appears impossible. But like Mr Savary I believe – and this is why I have presented this modified proposal and have continued to insist – that we have to seek a midpoint which will clearly not satisfy anybody, but which may provide a balance which reasonably takes account of the different interests involved.
The reality is that we also have to remember that the internal market will shortly be extended towards the East and that, in those circumstances, it will be even more necessary to seek a coordinated approach and position and a degree of harmonisation. We are not talking about total harmonisation, but rather a minimum degree of harmonisation of the rules on traffic restrictions on the Trans-European Networks which guarantee appropriate freedom of movement of goods within the Union, which is essential to the economic development and economic activity of our countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples