Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-080"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-05-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Trans-European networks (1998 Annual Report)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000503.5.3-080"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-05-03-Speech-3-0812
lpv:speaker	lp:Roseline Vachetta2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this annual report clearly shows that Europe is not providing itself with the means to implement its trans-European transport networks policy. But apart from the simple budgetary and financial considerations, in more general terms, it is the Commission’s general guidelines in this area that are worthy of criticism. We do agree, of course, with the principle that it is necessary to create trans-European networks for the people of Europe, for the movement of people and goods, for economic and social cohesion and for rail alternatives to the all-powerful motorway. We cannot, however, accept the method that has been imposed or the solutions that have been proposed. Are all the fourteen projects that have been accepted relevant or essential to the needs of local populations? Have they been devised in association or in consultation, or is the rationale of the trans-European networks, as the report implies, only based on the free market? It is, moreover, not by chance that out of the fourteen projects, the seven whose timetable and financing are still in doubt are precisely those which do not only answer to the demands of profit. The most negative aspect, however, seems to be the financing. It is based on the principle that public funds cannot be increased, which is a moot point. It therefore proposes to have recourse to private funds, in the form of partnerships, and this, moreover, is an essential element of the project. This approach to rail transport raises the issue of public service. Clearly, if private operators are involved in the financing, they will aim for maximum profit. We must make use of private companies because they profit from the infrastructures, but in the form of tax deductions and not by them having an interest in the capital of railway companies. The idea of a European public rail service must be developed and we reject privatisation and access to the capital of rail companies, including for new projects. Once again, Europe is responding to a genuine need on the part of the people, the need for a high-quality European rail transport network, which is outstanding for both passengers and staff, with a race for profit."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph