Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-492"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090422.60.3-492"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should obviously like straight away to reassure Mrs Sommer during this discussion. There have been many laws here that have affected local authorities: on the pitting of the
or municipal utilities, against one another, for example; on public service obligations in the transport sector; and on the directives on public contracts.
That is what we are aiming for, and that is why we are calling for a financial instrument. There is Marco Polo, which encourages the use of combined transport. There are the URBAN programmes. We have several European programmes that provide incentives. We are not inventing them this time; that has been going on for years.
Without its being increased, the next financial perspective should be reoriented towards urban transport. That is our proposal.
To conclude, I would say – Madam President, excuse me, I am the rapporteur – to Mr Tajani that, if, tomorrow, we have a very large majority, he should be able to go back to the Commission and say: ‘I believe that we must do something, because we have legitimacy and because Parliament has not acted alone’.
Well, this is not what this is about. This is much more to do with subsidiarity. It is not a question of deciding here that a local council, a municipality or an urban area should become a ‘30 zone’ or should give priority to rail travel. I have made sure that we do not revert to this type of debate.
The question I asked myself was: ‘What can the European Union’s added value be?’ The answer is, firstly, its desire to act. The European Union cannot leave the urban question to one side the very same month – December 2008 – that it sets itself, thanks to Mrs Merkel and to Mr Sarkozy, a particularly ambitious climate-change plan.
How can we embark on a ‘three times twenty’ climate-change plan and say ‘I am not interested in the urban environment’, when the latter has the biggest influence on climate change?
This is a question of political consistency – European political consistency – since we had agreed, and the governments had too, to embark on the climate-change plan. There is a legitimate need to focus on the urban environment, and we cannot escape it, either in the area of transport or in other areas.
Yes, we must ensure that local councils take sovereign decisions; they are closer to us. However, what we can do is to ensure that they meet with one another, that they exchange best practices, and information.
We can ensure that they are encouraged to implement urban development plans, which is something that they have not all been able to do.
We can ensure that they integrate all modes of transport: soft transport, public transport, water transport – Mr Blokland is right – and rail transport.
We can ensure that they make urban transport more attractive to users."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples