Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-324"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010117.11.3-324"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have not yet reached the point that a number of people whom I have heard speak this evening have reached. As matters stand, infrastructure investments are made in waterways and other transport modes, for example. Nobody knows exactly how much is invested. On the other hand, the state receives revenue from transport, such as road tax. Nobody knows precisely how much this amounts to, but one thing we
know is that it is not directly re-invested in roads and other forms of infrastructure.
This report addresses the balance between revenue and expenditure; intangible costs such as environmental and noise-related costs are also taken into account. Some people also want to recoup the cost of traffic jams from those who get stuck in them, according to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. I think this is an excellent principle and I would like to see it applied in full, but not to traffic jams. Traffic jams are indicative of failed government policy on the infrastructure front, which is why the government itself, certainly in the Netherlands, must be regarded as the polluter.
This report talks about balancing the payment of social costs between the different modes of transport. Let us take a moment to consider the train in this light. Road transport always seemed to cause far more pollution than rail transport. Following research, this seems not to be the case. Now the question is: what are we actually seeking to achieve by making social costs visible in this way? Do we really want an objective, rational assessment of the costs of the transport modes, or, if certain results do not meet with our approval, for example if rail transport becomes prohibitively expensive as a result, will we end up making a political assessment? We want people to travel by train and so it must be made more affordable. That is fine by me, but not by using this method. We are not going to tax water and road transport heavily first on the basis of the theoretical model, and then spare the train. Road and passenger traffic already pay far more than their share in terms of social costs. So either we stop beating about the bush, so that everyone knows what they can be for or against, or we operate a well-balanced and proportional system with guarantees for the disabled, people who live in rural areas and have no choices, and the competition position of the Union.
Commissioner, I must say, this is a hornet’s nest you have got yourself into. Why should a system of this kind only be applied to the transport sector? Why should it not be applied to aluminium factories, hospitals, ski runs, hypermarkets, parliament buildings and high-voltage networks too?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples