Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-254"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.9.3-254"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I should like to thank the rapporteur on behalf of my Group. He was most cooperative while drafting his report. Basically, the rule of the internal market is that aid distorts competition and is therefore inadmissible. The previous speaker pointed this out. There must be special grounds for exceptions to this rule. In this regulation, the special grounds are: the coordination of inland transport. The prime purpose of aid in this sector is to allow fair competition between road, rail and inland waterway transport. This is the only way of optimising the overall European transport system in the long term, especially in the freight sector. This is the only way we shall ever bring about the much-vaunted intermodal transport chains. In order to make these transport chains as flexible as possible, we want to extend the scope of the regulation to short sea shipping. Government funding for building, maintaining and operating transport infrastructure does not come under the ban on aid, provided that it is available to all users on a non-discriminatory basis. This should apply irrespective of the legal form of the infrastructure operator. This is the only way of ensuring that railways and ports are treated on a equal footing with roads.
Now to aid for use of the infrastructure. Aid for using transport infrastructure should reflect the widely varied costs incurred by society from the choice of mode of transport. In other words, both the infrastructure and the external costs must be included when calculating aid. Equality of competition between the modes of transport is safeguarded by paying the difference between the unpaid costs of two carriers to the social and more environmentally-friendly carrier in the form of aid in order to make it cheaper and more attractive to use. Unfortunately – and this has also already been addressed – there is no politically legitimate model for calculating these costs at European level, which is why I have agreed, after a great deal of discussion and careful thought, to the supplementary model, which provides for contracts to shift transport from the roads to the railways and inland waterways. This is introduced in proposed Amendment No 48 and I call on the House to support it. However, this model should only be allowed for a transitional period because, the best intentions notwithstanding, it contradicts the basic approach of the regulation in targeting equality of competition.
Now to notification: aid needs to be notified, but bureaucratic costs should be kept to a minimum. We therefore suggest exemptions for terminals which are provided for in a national or European development plan or which belong to the trans-European freight traffic network. We are also in favour of a
rule of EUR 100 000 over three years. As far as aid for the use of transport infrastructure is concerned, we are calling for five-year aid with the possibility of renewal.
On balance, the regulation will help to bring about a clearer structure for the granting of aid for the coordination of inland transport and to dismantle distortions of competition – including between Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples