Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.5.3-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for the wonderful work she has done, and express my gratitude for the discussions and progress which have resulted from the joint work of the three institutions with a view to achieving approval at first reading, because I believe that the objections we had in relation to some of the points which had been adopted in the first report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism have been entirely altered by means of certain compromise amendments which are acceptable to the Commission and which I also believe will be acceptable to the Council when the time comes.
The next issue I would like to mention very briefly is the case of London, although we could consider other cities. Ladies and gentlemen, the field in which we demand interoperability and compatibility does not apply to the London toll, amongst other reasons, firstly, because it is a local area, which does not fall within our competences and above all because in London no equipment is installed. Furthermore, it is pointed out that it would not be applied in cases in which the intended objective implies an excessive or unbalanced cost.
Mr President, I will end by saying that, for the sake of conciseness and in order to ensure precision in an area of a highly technical nature, we believe that we should partially revise the wording – not the substance – of Amendments Nos 2, 14, 18 and 32. Apart from that, Mr President, it only remains for me to thank Mrs Sommer for her wonderful work and the honourable Members for your cooperation and to sum up by saying that this is the technological system which later on will allow us to appropriately apply the Eurovignette Directive. Today we are not talking about tolls as such, but of methods for charging tolls more simply, which create fewer problems for the users and which facilitate the operation of the internal market.
I would like to point out that tomorrow, with the ratification by this plenary of the rapporteur’s suggestions, we may see the approval by the Council of Parliament’s proposal, which – I would insist – the Commission could accept in this form.
Furthermore, I would like to reply briefly to some of the concerns expressed by the honourable Members.
Firstly, with regard to the issue of subsidiarity, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to tell you that this is guaranteed. What we are essentially proposing is a single legal contract, which allows for a payment for the use of an infrastructure, wherever that use takes place, at the place of origin, from the user's current account. In other words, for example, just as the charges for the use of a mobile phone or a credit card in any part of the European Union are subsequently charged to our bank accounts, we are trying to create a similar situation for road tolls: that the use of an infrastructure in a third country is charged to our bank account.
This will have to be done by means of contracts and with sufficient guarantees, as in the sectors I have mentioned as examples.
In order to be able to do that not only do we need a single contract but also we need to make progress in order to take full advantage of these conditions in relation to the interoperability and compatibility of systems.
I must say that, despite the fact that Mrs Sommer and certain other speakers have said that it is premature to commit ourselves now to a system – such as the satellite system, which has not been fully tested – and that I believe we could perhaps have made more progress, the final result of the debate we have held is positive. I also believe that a strong recommendation for the future in favour of the Galileo system sends an appropriate message to the whole sector which is going to invest, which is investing or intends to implement the Galileo system and, therefore, we are providing support for the Galileo system – which is a European system – with the necessary flexibility so that each country can, nevertheless, take the corresponding measures, provided that they are compatible and interoperable, although there may possibly be other solutions in the event that there are, for example, problems relating to investments, the repayment of investments, etc.
To reply very briefly to the question from Mr Swoboda on the negotiations with the United States, I would like to take this opportunity to say that they are moving ahead very positively. In recent times, in relation to the problem of overlapping of frequencies, we have now fully resolved – in a way which is satisfactory to both parties – the overlapping of code M of the American GPS – which is the maximum security code – with our own signal – the closed security signal, reserved for public authorities within the Galileo system – and we have found formulae which have in no way prejudiced the quality of the Galileo system and which at the same time offer the security guarantees called for by the United States.
It remains for us to resolve the overlapping which occurs – according to the Americans – between our open signal and one of their signals. We have made it very clear that what we cannot accept is the United States’ initial proposal – which means moving from 1 5 1 5 (which is what we would like) to 1 1 (the Americans’ preference) – because we believe the quality of our service would be greatly reduced. Furthermore, we believe that on 1 5 we do not create security problems for the American security system. In any event, we are bringing these discussions to an end, but I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that no greater difficulties arise and that we will have a complete solution, since almost all the issues have practically been resolved, something I am extremely happy about. To this we should add the interest expressed by countries such as China, India, Brazil and other third countries in participating in this project."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples