Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.11.2-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I should like to thank my colleague Mrs Peijs for her very hard work in trying to reach suitable compromises on such a controversial and difficult report. Despite that, unfortunately, our view has not changed. The report was billed as proposals and an action programme for transport until 2010, but I believe strongly that it contains little more than ill-researched, half-baked ideas.
It should not surprise anyone that the majority of the ideas proposed could not be considered seriously, as the original Commission proposal was so backward-looking. Not only is the paper almost totally focused on rail to the detriment of all other modes of transport, but it completely fails to alleviate the precarious situation in which the aviation industry has unfortunately found itself, particularly since 11 September.
Yet again, the age-old favourite of kerosene tax has popped up, another way of sneaking it in through the back door. Competition also appears to have fallen by the wayside in this proposal. Either it was ignored deliberately or it was simply forgotten in the excitement of the rail enthusiasts in the Commission. The consumer has a right to choose his method of transport, so perhaps improving all modes, rather than just concentrating on rail, would have allowed the transport industry to compete fairly.
Obviously, some of the most contentious issues in this paper concern the aspect of subsidiarity. It is clear that a European Road Safety Agency would be a total waste of taxpayers' money and another pointless layer of bureaucracy. In addition, we also oppose the introduction of a European Transport Fund, as this reeks of vested interest. One other point on taxation and infrastructure charging will be covered by my colleague Mr Bradbourn.
If I may finally say, this proposal was a complete waste of an opportunity by the Commission to come up with far-reaching, innovative ideas which many of us may have been able to support. In a nutshell, it is a retrograde, ill-thought-out proposal, which we shall be voting against."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples