Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-178"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-09-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Inland transport of dangerous goods (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070904.22.2-178"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-09-04-Speech-2-1792
lpv:speaker	lp:Jeanine Hennis-plasschaert2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2007-02-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"As has already been said, Mr President, the proposal seeks to update and consolidate the existing directives and regulations on the inland transport of dangerous goods. A single legal text will now cover inland waterway transport in addition to road and rail transport. In all honesty I wonder how anyone could possibly oppose it. I cannot imagine that anyone questions the usefulness of and need for measures to ensure that these transport operations are conducted in the safest way possible. If these measures can be combined and worded more clearly, then that benefits all of us. In committee we upheld most of the rapporteur's chiefly technical amendments. Clearly the rapporteur liaised closely on these with the Council and, on a directive of this kind, that is generally the most efficient way of going about it. So it is commendable too that the rapporteur is keen to secure an agreement at first reading. But the ALDE Group was rather surprised by Amendment 45 and finds it a bit casual. Why not settle for the text used in Amendment 16, which everyone was happy with, ourselves included? Why go along with everything the Council wants, even when that may work against the efficiency of logistics chains? Why not talk to the Council about this? Not all Member States are in favour of this 'compromise'. What will the rapporteur, and also Mrs Sommer and Messrs Jarzembowski and Simpson, have achieved if Member States are able arbitrarily to favour one mode of transport over another? Surely it is obvious that every mode of transport must ensure, in its own specific way, that its operations are safe and efficient. Why should the market players not be able to determine that for themselves? We made sure of that previously with Amendment 16 and so I urge you to take another look at Amendment 45 and maybe think again. My thanks to the rapporteur for his hard work, but I think it is a pity he allowed himself to be seduced into reintroducing this provision on the use of prescribed forms of transport by the back door. Again, I urge you to reconsider your position on Amendment 45."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph