Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-22-Speech-3-432"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081022.23.3-432"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Honourable Member, the question is an extremely delicate one: if Mr Albertini, who is always very generous, would like to buy us a coffee, we could discuss it and hear the experience of a mayor of a large European city.
There can be no easy answer to this question. I was a municipal councillor in Rome for five years whilst I was an MEP and I dealt with these same issues. These things have to be looked at on a city by city, case by case basis, because some cities – I am thinking of Rome – have an historic centre with very narrow streets, where it is difficult for traffic to circulate. Other cities have a different urban environment and so it is not easy to have one rule for everyone.
I think that, always using the principle of subsidiarity, mayors should choose, with the consensus of municipal councils, to impose a congestion charge if they think it useful and if the city they administrate needs to restrict traffic because in very old cities, the centre becomes congested very easily. Therefore the situation varies from city to city and it is difficult to find a solution. I would definitely say that it is not an option to be disregarded, even if it can sometimes cause confusion. You have to look at where the perimeter would be. I would reiterate that it is a choice to be made by individual cities. Personally, I am not against it in principle but, in certain cases, it can be unfair to impose it whilst in others, it can be entirely appropriate.
Given, therefore, the diversity of European cities, I believe that especially in this case, the final decision should always be left to local authorities, although in the action plan, we will still offer suggestions and ideas. The important thing is that citizens are always informed and that they know what is going on and the decisions that are taken, because when it comes to paying taxes, it is always good for citizens to understand what they are paying for.
I regret that I cannot give a definitive answer of principle. I truly believe that we have to examine the facts and the impact, including on the urban environment, and take the decisions one case at a time. To conclude, I would like to say again that, in principle, I am not against it, but that there could be cases in which it would be pointless to impose a tax of this kind."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples