Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.8.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the White Paper on Transport is dated 12 September 2001 and it may appear that we have spent too much time analysing this important report sent to us by the Commission. However, I must say that we have made good use of this time, thorough use I believe, to debate and bring together positions between the different groups in the House. At the moment these approximations are still taking place, and I would urge that we reach a thorough consensus for the vote tomorrow.
Safety cannot be conditional. There is a proposal from Parliament on the creation of the European safety agency for roads – the only one missing from the White Paper on Transport – and I hope that it is received well, as well as other problems relating to safety at sea, on the railways, etc.
Commissioner, the time has come for us to say very clearly that the European Union’s transport policy cannot work without a consistent budgetary policy, and hence Parliament’s proposal on the European transport fund that we need and on the financial instrument for transport.
It is true that European asymmetry is not properly considered in the White Paper, that urban issues have not been dealt with since they are considered subsidiary and not to be subject to the Commission’s proposal, that public transport is not yet properly dealt with – and we are asking the Commission for complementary documents – that enlargement is not really taken into account in the White Paper, but if Europe wants to participate in the process of globalisation and not wait for others to implement it and, if it wants to be as viable as possible, it must have better transport. You have cooperated in the White Paper in this respect and Parliament wishes to follow.
We have used this time to inform the sectors and allow them to participate. I am sure that the Commission has held many contacts with all the sectors before producing the White Paper, but I must say that Parliament has not been left behind and that practically all the European associations representing the different modes of transport have been heard by Parliament and that many of their proposals have been incorporated into the approach we have been working on.
This approach is characterised by a fundamental fact: Commissioner, in this case Parliament is not opposing the Commission. On the contrary, it is demonstrating willingness and carrying out a positive analysis of the Commission’s proposal, of the proposals in the White Paper, and we believe that the enormous majority of its offers and analysis can be perfectly endorsed by this Parliament.
W are continuing this reflection, however, and providing certain constructive criticisms and specific proposals which should be analysed by the Commission as appropriate.
This is a crucial and decisive time for transport. It is true that in 1992, in the last White Paper on Transport, certain objectives were set which have been fulfilled practically in their entirety. We could say that the liberalisation of transport was the strategic and fundamental objective of that White Paper: the incorporation of technologies, the reduction in transport costs, the increase in competitiveness, objective achieved, but in this war, we have lost the battle of sustainability, and I am glad that the Commission is the first to clearly acknowledge the seriousness of this problem, and the fact that we cannot afford to delay decision making if we want to be operative.
The problem of sustainability in the broad sense, environmental, naturally, with the grave consequences of the pollution created by transport, which cancel out the savings made in the rest of industry with a view to fulfilling the Kyoto commitments, and with the impact, not only on nature generally, but on the health of the citizens who, according to certain reports, reaches levels practically as serious as transport accident levels.
As well as the actual environmental aspect, congestion is worrying. We used to have a functional operative transport system which was competitive, but now the main routes are seizing up, cities are becoming grid-locked, kilometres of rail and road, approaches to airports, are showing themselves to be structurally weak in terms of competitiveness. And therefore competitiveness is being seriously harmed. This is not the time to give figures, I refuse to do that, we do not have time, but I must say that we are also moving in that direction.
Charging is a rough diamond in the White Paper which we must be able to cut from now on and which is essential. We must promote modes of transport which are respectful of the environment, create synergy between the different modes of transport by means of intermodality and the logistical platforms necessary for creating transport as efficiently as possible.
The essential role of roads must be respected and valued, the railways must be liberalised, short- and medium-distance cabotage must be strengthened, etc."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples