Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-381"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090310.32.2-381"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, we have reached the end of yet another debate on a subject that I resolved to bring to the attention of this House as soon as I had obtained the support of Parliament, in other words, our aim of not imposing a new tax on European citizens. As far as the Commission is concerned, the fact that the new Eurovignette is optional is evidence that we are not imposing a new tax. Above all, the sums collected will not be generally earmarked for the budgets of the various Member States but will be allocated to make a difference in a particular sector, namely pollution, the internalisation of external costs and the construction of safer roads and infrastructure.
I wish to thank Parliament for the commitment it showed to the greening package, particularly with regard to the review of the Eurovignette directive. The draft adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism based on Mr El Khadraoui’s report sends out a strong message to Member States because it proposes a more flexible framework that legally authorises the adoption of new instruments to combat negative effects within the transport sector and also within the parties involved in the sector. It does this by showing a political intent to gradually encourage the introduction of fair and effective tariff scales for the use of infrastructures whereby the polluter pays, instead of the taxpayer having to foot the bill.
I feel that the opinion approved by the Commission, which is under discussion today, reinforces the Commission’s proposal in some key respects. As far as the allocation of resources is concerned, I believe the proposed amendments are consistent with our suggested approach, which aims to defend the allocation of revenue from tolls and reduce the external effects of road transport, and I believe I can support them. As far as the type of external effects that should be taken into account, I say no to CO
but yes to taking congestion into account. A modulated congestion charge would allow us to fight climate change more effectively than if we applied a one-off tax on CO
. It is essential for the economic effectiveness of road transport and useful for ensuring sufficient income to fund new transport capacities and I believe that the compromise we achieved constitutes a sound basis for discussions with the Council. We must nonetheless take great care to ensure that the final result represents an encouragement to States rather than a deterrent and does not impose conditions that are too complicated to manage.
I harbour certain reservations, however, about the specific amendment concerning sensitive mountain areas. The Commission proposal already authorises a pollution cost multiplication factor known as the mountain correction factor. The fact that we simply authorised the addition of this tariff charge to the existing surcharge, decided in 2006 to fund the great tunnels through the Alps, amounts to a double tariff charge and this is an obstacle to achieving a single market in my opinion. Hence my puzzlement.
Now I would like to move on to Mr Jarzembowski’s report on the communication accompanying the directive. As he clearly showed during his speech, Mr Jarzembowski is highly critical of the Commission’s position: for once. we are not in agreement after all these years of working together. The report is clearly critical. I will attempt to concentrate on two points in particular, two points that I feel are crucial. I wish to stress, on the one hand, that the Commission has carried out an impact assessment that covers all transport methods and analyses the effects of the various internalisation options. I feel that this analysis lays the foundation for the internalisation strategy proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission has proposed a common internalisation framework based on a principle that concerns all transport methods and takes into account past initiatives. It is a pragmatic approach that respects the
and takes into account the recently adopted proposals – I am thinking of the extension of the ETS to aviation and the international agreements on aviation, the maritime sector and inland waterways. Of course we can debate whether or not the Commission’s proposals go far enough, but I must stress the fact that the Commission has dealt with the topics it was asked to cover, in other words, an integrated plan to make transport greener, supported by specific legislative proposals.
I wish to end by bringing up one aspect on which the Commission and Parliament are in agreement: the need to find a legislative approach to the problem of noise pollution in the railway sector. The Commission will submit its proposals within the framework of the first railway package revision, due to be adopted in the autumn. We will, of course, be pleased to hear your suggestions on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples