Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-423"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
"Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me, as we close this debate, to add two comments. The first I address to Mr Evans. My group is in favour of the internalisation of external costs, and specifically exhaust emissions and noise. We believe this is reasonable. Yet, if you always put the polluter pays principle first – I am prepared to discuss this with you – then it is the Member States that cause the congestion by not providing sufficient infrastructure. The goods vehicles drive into congestion, 80% of which is made up of cars. To make businesses pay for congestion caused by the Member States is nonsensical. If you applied the polluter pays principle, Member States would have to give extra money to the goods vehicle owners as it is the States that cause the congestion by failing to provide adequate infrastructure in time. We are in agreement that there does not always have to be additional infrastructure. Another way to prevent congestion is through intelligent traffic systems. There are lots of modern technologies capable of preventing congestion. To say, however, we have congestion, so the goods vehicles must pay for it, gives the Member States no incentive to remove the congestion, as to do so would cost them revenue. That, surely, cannot be right! Mr Vice-President, you were right to say that you did not want to introduce new taxes by means of this proposal and you insisted on ring-fencing. Can we agree, then, Commissioner, Mr Vice-President, that, when the Council of Ministers fails to come out in favour of a clear ring-fencing of the revenue from the Eurovignettes, you will withdraw the proposal? You see, you said you do not want any new taxes. I completely agree with you that if the Eurovignette is to be made more expensive as a result of exhaust emissions and noise, this extra money must also be used to reduce the environmental impact of road transport and not to fill holes in the finance ministers’ budgets. That is not on. With that in mind, I hope that you will stick to your position, in other words, no taxation without ring-fencing and withdrawal of the proposal where that is the case. Thank you very much."@en1
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples