Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.11.2-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Izquierdo, for the work he has done, all the members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on the quality of the report as a whole, and the various speakers who have spoken on behalf of the different committees during this debate. I would also like to thank all the Members who have spoken, including those who were highly critical, because I believe they provide colour and variety and above all they communicate feelings and opinions which must be taken into account when we talk about offering solutions in an area which, as Mr Izquierdo said, is so large and diverse and at times so asymmetric as the European area.
Paragraph 9 states that the transfer of goods transport by road to other modes of transport should be promoted by improving the quality of service of these other modes of transport which are more respectful and under no circumstances having a negative impact on the competitiveness of road transport. I believe that this sentence is fundamental.
Europe cannot afford to make road transport less competitive, since it forms the basis of its economic development, its growth and its international competitiveness. It is a question of making, for example, the railways as competitive as road transport. To those who entirely reject the liberalisation of the railways – who are a minority in this Parliament – or the introduction of competition – we are talking more of introducing competition than liberalisation, since this is a highly regulated form of liberalisation – I would say that we know what maintaining the current situation would lead to: to our having railways in museums but not in reality.
I believe we should try to take other routes which have provided good results in other sectors of transport, but I would like to stress this phrase: it is not a question of penalising but of improving the quality of other systems.
The honourable Members also propose the creation of great axes (east-west, north-south) of roads and railways, as laid out in paragraph 36 and others. I would like to point out that it is a question of incorporating enlargement in terms of the trans-European networks and of exchanges and of this European area in which it is transport that guarantees the reality of a market and the capacity for goods and people to move around throughout this European area.
We must insist on strengthening the railways. This is a fundamental point and we cannot ignore it. Paragraph 36 and others refer to this aspect. I am aware that it also involves promoting inland waterways, the maritime sector, but in some cases we cannot avoid building new roads because there are areas which still lack road infrastructures. We must therefore not be dogmatic, but we must have a practical appreciation of the reality of European transport needs.
With regard to the great Fund for financing transport, of course I fully agree with Mr Izquierdo Collado that we need greater European funds in order to provide the support and promotion for the creation of infrastructures, in particular rail infrastructures, and for curing bottle necks in order to improve the use of European infrastructures.
Can it be approached in the way Mr Izquierdo Collado proposes? I believe, rather, that what we have to do is, within the context of the new financial perspectives whose principle elements will be discussed shortly, raise the need to channel more funds to the trans-European networks. I believe it is there that we must seek these greater funds, these greater resources, because what is clear is that we need to speed up the process of creating infrastructures. The funds currently allocated to the trans-European networks are insufficient and we must make progress in this field, because these networks are of benefit and interest to Europe as a whole, regardless of the specific countries they link or cross. They are of interest at European level because they promote – I would insist – the creation of the internal markets and the integration of the European area itself.
This issue of the EIB: other formulae to bring us closer, of course, and we must also promote public-private participation in funding. I will shortly present all these issues in that infrastructures package, including charging. Mr Costa has mentioned this, but I would like to say that charging is discussed in paragraphs 75 and 76 which speak of the simultaneous introduction of a system for setting prices in all modes of transport, both for infrastructures and for the related external costs, and which say that under no circumstances must anybody be penalised but that we must promote a balance and allow cross funding.
Ladies and gentlemen, I fully agree with this approach, with one exception, and that is that cross funding must be restricted to exceptional cases in alternative routes and under no circumstances must cross funding or tolls or charging become a form of generating income from the geographical situation of a country within the European area. Otherwise we would be returning to medieval times, when, for example, controlling a bridge over a river provided sufficient income to live in luxury and become a member of the gentry. That is what we must do, establish charging which covers costs, which is destined for infrastructures, the improvement of infrastructures, improvements in road safety, the improvement of the locations where they are collected, and that in certain cases cross funding may be allowed, since it is clearly a good instrument and has led to good results, as for example in the case of the Swiss system.
Before 2004, the Commission will draw up a communication on the transport situation in the candidate countries. We do not believe that a specific communication is necessary in 2003 because we are going to produce two reports. Firstly, a complete follow-up report, six months prior to the date of accession, that is, more or less in November 2003, which will examine the degree of preparedness of the candidate countries in all sectors, including transport, and a communication in 2003 on cooperation with the candidate countries and neighbouring countries in the field of trans-European transport networks. All of this in addition to the report by the van Miert group, which draws up the networks within the context of twenty-seven countries: the pan-European network.
I would like to point out that I agree with the honourable Members, and this is clearly spelt out in Mr Izquierdo’s report – which I consider to be very balanced – that we are talking about sustainable transport and this requires, to begin with, a competitive transport system. If we do not create a competitive transport system in Europe, the whole of our industrial fabric, the whole of our productive sector, will suffer. We must therefore create competitive transport, but at the same time we must take account of society’s demands, which are linked to quality of life and respect for the environment. And this is the not always an easy task we must respond to through our proposals.
Ladies and gentlemen, the mid-term assessment report in 2005, laid down in the White Paper, will be the perfect opportunity to deal with these concerns and integrate all this information.
Mr President, I will end this long and extremely important debate by once again thanking Mr Izquierdo Collado for this work, which has been serious, balanced and difficult, since it is not easy to unite positions. In the end, I hope that tomorrow, following what I have heard throughout today’s debates, it is clearly established that the key guidelines for transport policy in the European Union for the next ten years is fully reflected in the vote in Parliament.
I have taken good note of the clear support offered by Mr Izquierdo and Parliament’s proposed report. You have taken your time, but, ladies and gentlemen, the Council is not moving any more quickly – let me make this very clear – in expressing its support for modal change, for the opening up of the railways, for the creation of the single sky, for the launch of the Galileo programme, on which it is really urgent that decisions and actions are taken.
Like us, your priorities include safety and the need to respond to the investment needs of the trans-European networks, in particular through charging, where necessary, for the use of infrastructures.
I am also glad that the report insists on the aspects relating to connection with outermost regions, on the economic importance of roads, on the need to reduce traffic – when I talk about the outermost regions I am talking about islands situated several thousand kilometres from continental Europe.
I believe that all these points are very interesting and worthy of our attention and they deserve to be highlighted in this report. However, I would like to make a few comments with regard to the important points which have been raised here and in the report.
Firstly, the road safety agency. I fully understand this idea, because it stems from the need to create means of promoting responsibility at all levels to react against the lack of safety on the roads while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and the Commission’s right of initiative.
I believe we should consider the steps to be taken in order to achieve this objective. I hope to be able to provide more detail in the communication on road safety which I will present to you in the near future, but there is little difference between an observatory and an agency. At the end of the day, they are the same idea.
I would like – in relation the text we are discussing – to make a few comments on competitiveness, respect for the environment and the incorporation of quality of services, safety and quality of life."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples