Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.11.2-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, together with the rapporteur, all the groups have done their best – indeed they have already come a long way – to reach a firm measure of agreement in this dossier, and my thanks to the rapporteur for his cooperation. As we said this afternoon, it might have taken a long time, Commissioner, but, when all is said and done, we have still been much quicker than the Council.
A general point to begin with: the White Paper outlining the policy lines for European transport policy up to 2010 has one major shortcoming, in my opinion: it lays too much emphasis on rail transport, as if that were the only real means of transport of the future. We must be realistic, however. We cannot give the railways any greater role than they deserve or can cope with in view of their current performance. It is imperative that the liberalisation of the railways on which Parliament decided recently results in increased safety for cross-border traffic, less red tape, more customer orientation and greater predictability; not, by definition, to privatisations.
Conversely, road transport, and, above all, water and air transport, quite unjustifiably receive scant attention in the White Paper. The large degree of flexibility, efficiency and reliability that road transport offers have led to tremendous growth in that sector. The quality of road transport is crucial, and it is this that supports the European economy. We must therefore continue to invest in improvements, for example, by making the roads more intelligent and by developing the road network. A competitive economy for Europe stands or falls on a healthy European transport sector.
Inland waterway transport, which, in some parts of Europe, has greater potential to relieve the pressure on road transport than the train, is given practically no attention in the White Paper. That is very disappointing. I am pleased, therefore, that Parliament, in its reaction to the White Paper, does consider the importance of inland waterway transport as an innovative, environmentally friendly and relatively cheap mode of transport that will soon connect Eastern and Western Europe with each another. The scope for growth in this sector is still very great. Combining this with short sea shipping makes inland waterway transport a mode of transport that is really to be reckoned with.
Funding the transport infrastructure for all modes of transport seems to be a major problem throughout Europe. The train infrastructure, in particular, will cost citizens billions in the future. All of this will have to be funded by passing on the external costs that have to be introduced at the same time for all modes of transport. Cross-subsidising, as proposed by the Commission, is only acceptable in specific areas, such as the Alps and the Pyrenees. We are not against this, therefore, Mr Swoboda. We cannot have extra-heavy duties being imposed on road transport in order to then use the proceeds to finance the railways. This goes against the principle of the free market economy, whereby all means of transport must enjoy the same conditions of competition. It is not a good idea to use pricing as a tool, therefore, but, if it is used, it must be used fairly. The consumer pays and the polluter pays, but each should pay for his own pollution and consumption rather than those of a competing mode of transport.
From this point of view, I really cannot understand Mr Bolkestein’s suggestion that we start with new excise duties for road transport: on petrol and diesel. I disagree, because in context, all modes of transport must be treated equally, at the same time. We never promised that there were politicians who were going to impose even more duties on the trains. We are resigned to that, so, then, let us not see it happening to the roads.
Mr President, I should now like to take up two important points: the European Road Safety Agency and the establishment of a European transport fund. The majority of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is absolutely not rejoicing at the prospect of these two initiatives. First, the agency. It goes without saying that it is very important to increase road safety in Europe: every victim of a traffic accident is one too many. The question, however, is whether an agency is an efficient means of tackling this problem for the time being, chiefly because authority in the field of traffic safety at EU level is almost non-existent. A looser form of coordination seems to us a more suitable way. Mr President, it seems to me that the transport fund is altogether too much for countries that cannot pay for their own roads and do not want to do so in other countries either."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples