Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.10.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Stockmann for the work he has done and I believe that Parliament’s support for this initiative in general – though with some modifications – demonstrates its importance.
I would like to point out firstly that I completely agree with several Members who have said that this alone is not sufficient: much more is needed.
This initiative forms part of the strategy we have been developing over recent years, aimed at achieving more competitive, dynamic and operative transport, particularly in the rail sector; to update infrastructures so that we can genuinely put an end to the fragmentations and obstacles existing not just in the rail sector, but also – as we are doing now – amongst other modes of transport. This type of measure will enable us to promote intermodality.
As the rapporteur has said quite rightly, following this attempt at convergence by means of certain common standardisation measures, other measures will have to be adopted, such as, for example, those relating to dock terminals. The Commission is already working on this issue in order to ascertain how we can achieve standardised dock systems, which facilitate loading and unloading and the docking of ships and which reduce times and costs. All of this is also associated with our proposal – which, unfortunately, has not moved forward – on the liberalisation of port services, in relation to which we also have to provide impetus and greater dynamism.
This is all part of a whole. A single measure does not get us very far. We must make progress on all of them in order to achieve the best we can.
I would like to say to the honourable Members that we accept the majority of the amendments. Some of them – Nos 2, 5, 14, 16 and 17 – must be reworded, because their current wording is perhaps not ideal. In any event, all of them are intended to clarify that the standardisation of intermodal loading units will not necessarily cause conflict with the existing global rules – in no way is that our intention. We believe that European standardisation bodies must not be, nor have any reason to be, slaves to the standards laid down by the International Standards Organisation, but that those bodies must decide which are the best possible standards for European intermodal transport, while taking due account, however, of the existing ISO standards and the needs of commerce.
Furthermore, this proposal ultimately depends on whether the market accepts it. What we are proposing are common standards which can facilitate – if the market considers it appropriate – operation within the intermodal network with these new bodies, which, as I said before, would prevent interruptions and would allow the quick transfer from river to sea, to rail or to road.
I would like to point out that we must reject Amendment No 6, since it states that harmonised rules will be developed by the European Standards Committee (CEN) and leaves out certain important standards bodies in this sector, such as the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
Mr President, I trust that, following approval by Parliament, with the exclusion – I hope – of this Amendment No 6, we can make rapid progress in the Council and thereby launch a proposal for the sector which eases progress towards intermodality, which is absolutely essential."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples