Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-10-Speech-1-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080310.20.1-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on sustainable European transport policy has now reached the stage of debate in plenary. The text has already been favourably received, without giving rise to major controversy, by the Transport Committee in January. Only forty or so amendments were tabled.
I should like to thank Members for the interest that they have shown in this report and in my work and, as I am aware that many others have asked to speak, I shall give them a chance to do so.
My main objective was to make this own initiative report as succinct as possible, no longer than twenty or so paragraphs, so that the European Parliament can put its recommendations to the Commission and the Council as effectively as possible. As the issues addressed are so vast – European policies on transport, energy and the environment – going into too much detail and producing an undue number of paragraphs would have weakened the report, and Parliament’s final resolution would have been less clear and incisive.
For the same reason, some issues have been left out. An own initiative report cannot tackle all the questions raised by transport, energy and the environment in an exhaustive way. However, this document may be of use to the Commission for future legislative proposals and to show what European citizens are expecting from the Community institutions.
Eight amendments have been tabled for this final examination in plenary. They do not, in substance, add anything new with respect to the debate in the Transport Committee. I should nevertheless like to comment briefly on them.
The Green Group has tabled six amendments and has called for a split vote on paragraph 16. That request removes the reference to the use of electricity of nuclear origin by rail transport, something with which I cannot agree. Rail transport is the mode of transport with the smallest carbon footprint, thanks partly to the use of nuclear as a source of electricity.
Amendment 6 asks the Commission to intervene to set a single speed limit for European motorways in all countries. Our German friends have already shown on a number of occasions that German motorways are safer and the number of accidents is lower than in many Member States of the European Union which have such a limit. The principle of subsidiarity should undoubtedly continue to be applied in this case.
Personally, I find Amendment 2 more coherent, especially the first part relating to transparent air transport costs and ticket pricing.
Mr Blokland has tabled Amendment 8, on behalf of the Independence/Democracy Group. This text refers to paragraph 2 and analyses the measures that citizens need to take to improve urban and suburban mobility. Here, I have to call for a vote against, as the amendment takes an entirely opposite line to that of the text adopted by the Transport Committee.
Lastly, my political group has again tabled an amendment – Amendment 1 relating to paragraph 11 – tabled in the Transport Committee, concerning the revision of the Eurovignette directive. Personally, I was and am not against the possibility of looking at this issue at the appropriate time in June. The European Commission has already announced that it will issue the proposal for revision at that time. I consider, however, in line with what has already been proposed in the Transport Committee, that there should be a free vote on the amendments in question."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples