Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.3.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr Cocilovo, my group does, of course, endorse your report, in which you support the proposal of the Commission to review the Directive on the road toll fees and propose major improvements. We are also glad that the committee, contrary to the rapporteur’s original inclinations, has not proposed the introduction of road toll fees for private motor vehicles by way of Community law, because I believe – and in this the Commission is completely right – that whether a country wishes to introduce road toll fees for private motor vehicles should be left up to that country on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity.
In my own country, Germany, there would be no reason for it, because when we consider what the driver is already paying for fuel and vehicle taxes, he is to a large extent paying for the costs of roads, indeed more than the costs of the roads would require. So we are glad that the question of toll fees for private motor vehicles is dealt with under European law.
Secondly, we support the Commissioner in her struggle – –which is what it is – in the Council for a clear commitment of purpose, because it makes no sense to increase the road toll fees in order to improve road maintenance and expansion, if as a result the increased revenues are added to the general tax pool and go to finance no doubt very reasonable training or cultural measures or other policies. If goods vehicles are to be subject to higher toll fees the revenues from them must be returned to the transport sector.
I would like to end by raising two questions, and I can guarantee that we will be discussing them again in the second round. We were indeed all in agreement – even the rapporteur has referred to it – that we cannot increase the road toll fees without limit, because the increase of toll fees would lead to the death of the transport economy and the economy as a whole. We cannot just regard the goods vehicle as the cash cow of Europe. There must be limits to how far we can increase road toll fees, because otherwise we will harm jobs and economic growth. For that reason, there are two questions on which there is certainly a need for further discussion.
Up to now, we generally took the view that it was possible to tax goods vehicles in favour of other transport players in the spirit of cross-finance in the Alps and the Pyrenees, because this territory, so to speak, imposed a need for particularly expensive transport facilities, for example for rail. Now, this provides a basis for permitting cross-finance in other sensitive areas also. I must warn against leaving the door open here. Speaking for my home city of Hamburg, I can say immediately that it is a sensitive area with a high volume of transport, so that we could indeed impose higher toll fees in Hamburg, Cologne and elsewhere. We must therefore think very carefully about where we will apply cross-finance as an instrument.
The second issue has to do with external costs; let me give you an example of what I mean. If toll fees are increased because of blockages on many sections of the Trans-European network, we would be rewarding the Member States who fail to build the necessary infrastructure. They would get more money if they do not expand. That cannot be right! So let us carefully consider these questions at second reading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples