Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - Strasbourg

11. Charging for the use of transport infrastructure

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0345/2000) by Mr Costa Paolo, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on transport infrastructure charging.

  Costa, Paolo (ELDR), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased to present this own-initiative report, drawn up by the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism with the aim of bringing about progress in an area which I hope our work will help you to understand better.

As you know, it derived from a 1995 Commission Green Paper, which called for measures to internalise the external costs incurred by environmental, safety and congestion considerations, in order to bring about a fairer and more efficient system of charging users for access to transport infrastructure. Basically, the report calls upon the Commission to intervene by harmonising the definitions of internal and external costs, harmonising or identifying charge calculation methodologies, and then, of course, leaving the implementation of these measures to subsidiarity and the decisions to be taken by the Member States.

In my opinion, in essence, the report ensures that the recommendation to apply the "polluter pays" principle is included in the wider principle of "user pays". This is its contribution, and it has two consequences which I wish to emphasise now. The first is that if the methodology which we hope the Commission will decide upon and we will be able to endorse enables us to produce a clearer definition of the internal and external costs and a clearer system for charging users, we will create the conditions to be able to transfer the financing of infrastructure from purely public resources and general taxation to the users as such. We can therefore now picture the enormous effort before Europe – the Europe of today and the Europe of tomorrow – in the process of constructing new infrastructure, the effort of involving private capital in this operation as well, which would not be possible if we do not succeed in identifying this situation.

The next step is to consider that, where the attribution of some of these costs is meaningless, as, for example, in the case of the Italian motorways, which have already fully achieved their payback – the revenue from these charges which exist today could constitute funds to be used in cross-subsidies, in order to ensure that certain costs charged to road users serve to improve infrastructure in other modes of transport which are certainly more environmentally friendly.

I would stress that this whole system, which transfers the financial burden from the State to the user, must have a safeguard, and that is the last principle, according to which those who have the most difficult circumstances because they are disabled or because they live in rural or remote areas where access is difficult, can in some way be exempted, and a series of subsidies, including State subsidies, can therefore be developed to compensate for this.

Our objective in producing this report is to draw together certain fundamental principles which I have already mentioned: the "user pays" principle, the "polluter pays" principle and the principle of cross-subsidisation etc. together. How can we do this? The methodological suggestion given here is that a series of good practices exist now in Europe, which we have attempted to explore and put together in a seminary whose papers we will make available to anyone one who wishes to study the issue in more depth and which we have financed with the help of the Commission. Well then, these practices can now, in my opinion, be generalised and made available to everyone. This would make it possible – and I feel that the time is now ripe – to obtain operative indications for advancing European policy in this direction in practical terms.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Costa, ladies and gentlemen, I want to give high praise to the rapporteur for his success in achieving a broad consensus with his report, after we have spent years in this House hotly debating the right way to charge for transport infrastructure costs.

Commissioner, Vice-President, I hope that after the vote tomorrow you will peruse all the drafts for the White Paper on transport policy again and check whether they follow the same lines as proposed by this House. After all, normally the Commission's proposals always take account of the Member States' views, and perhaps in future they will also take more account of Parliament's views.

I believe that the Costa report offers an opportunity to re-think some of the habits the various departments have grown so fond of. I also hope that we do not mix up the subject matter of the White Paper with the subject of the trans-European networks. We are about to review the trans-European networks; these are both important subjects. To present them to Parliament as a single package would, in my view, be extremely unwise since they are in fact separate subjects.

Allow me to make just a few comments on the Costa report. Amendment No 1 makes it quite clear that we want use-based transport charging, which can be verified on the basis of the construction, expansion and improvement costs. That is the first issue. So there are two aims of which we must not lose sight when we harmonise these transport infrastructure charges.

Firstly, we must finally achieve a single market in this area. For when you think that we still have enormous distortions of competition because of divergent fiscal and other charges between the Member States, a whole 8-9 years after the completion of the single market on 31 December 1992, then the question of equal competition is bound to arise.

Secondly, we really all think that after the meteoric rises in oil prices over the past year, in whatever way we want to convert and achieve a more fair and environmentally compatible system, the total charge for undertakings must not rise. We do not want any forcing up of prices.

Last point: in relation to external costs I have two requests. Firstly, about three years ago, Parliament decided in toto to work out on a scientific basis what the external costs actually are. How can they be calculated and how can they be charged? We never received that report. Secondly, we must differentiate when we calculate these external costs. To give just one example: congestion costs. It would be absurd to charge an undertaking for the fact that the drivers are stuck in a tail-back because the Member States have not expanded the roads, so that the undertaking not only has higher petrol and working costs but also has to pay additional charges to the Member State responsible for the congestion.

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Costa, for his excellent work on what is a very difficult, detailed but important dossier.

Congestion, pollution, gridlock, global warming, floods, freak weather. Is it the end of the world? No, it is just rush-hour in my region. The same problems are occurring in regions and Member States across the European Union. We all have the same transport crisis and there may be common solutions to these common problems. We must all accept the fact, for example, that the fastest growing source of global warming gases is the transport sector. Something surely, colleagues, must be done.

However, as we all know, everyone wants someone else to do it. That is our challenge. I hope Mr Costa's work, his report and the conclusions we will reach tomorrow will provide a framework within which we can begin to tackle these problems. We must promote better understanding of our common problems and, indeed, find common solutions to them across the European Union, but on the basis of consensus and mutual understanding.

Secondly, we must promote an exchange of ideas. Many localities and regions have excellent ideas, and that knowledge and information must be disseminated throughout the European Union.

Indeed, that is my third point: Europe has a key role to play here in disseminating best practice as to how best we tackle the transport challenge.

Fourthly and finally, in terms of what Europe's contribution can be within the framework of this particular initiative, I hope that governments, local authorities and those implementing taxes and charges can do so within a framework that is developed and integrated at a European level, and do it together.

However, I want to say that there is great concern and anxiety about this particular Commission initiative and, indeed, about Mr Costa's report, although I personally feel that many of those concerns were fully addressed in committee where, I know, there was widespread cross-party support for Mr Costa's work. There were concerns, for example, about subsidiarity. But that was more than adequately addressed when we said to the Commission: you have a key role to play in trying to pull this research together. But, clearly, Member States and their role will be fully respected in terms of their rights to determine their own taxation levels.

Indeed, the work we have done has already gained and secured widespread support. I can refer to a letter from the organisation that represents the motoring clubs across Europe, including, for example, the AA and RAC, who are broadly sympathetic and supportive of our work, because they know that unless Europe takes a lead on this issue, unless we begin pulling together the best of the ideas from across the European Union, then the cities, towns and rural areas, will continue to suffer from unacceptable levels of congestion and pollution.

I commend Mr Costa's report, his work and, above all, his ability to bring us all together in a single common objective of trying to tackle the transport crisis.

  Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Costa, for his most excellent work. I would also like to say thank you for the interesting debate on the subject with some illuminating examples.

I think it is important that the issue is now being dealt with by Parliament. The main principle of the report is quite right, that users should pay for the transport infrastructure and its maintenance costs. Charges for the use of the transport infrastructure must take account of the costs to society, but also the ability-to-pay principle and the need to support remote areas. The importance of charging for the use of the transport infrastructure will increase as a means of controlling the situation in the future. The system of charges must be flexible and dynamic, so that it would offer incentives for the introduction of new technical services. As there are plans, however, for a combination of fares and taxes, we have to take care that we are not simply left with a system of taxation.

There are still a lot of problems attached to a system of charges. Covering overall costs with fares will work in areas where there is a lot of transport. Conditions vary regionally, however, to a significant extent, so the same bases for charges cannot apply everywhere. Long distances, scattered populations and difficult natural conditions must be taken account of when the instruments in respect of charges are determined, just as the report states. In my opinion, it is important that we look into the possible impact of the scheme before charging becomes a reality.

  Bouwman (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank Mr Costa, who did, when all is said and done, put in a huge amount of work, having started by following the activities of the high-level working group on this subject, because it is an own-initiative report. Ultimately, we were left with a report that we would have preferred, at the very least, to send out a different signal to the Commission, in particular. In fact we expect more from the Commission than the signal sent out by what, in a sense, remains of the Costa report.

Allow me to explain as follows – it will also speak of a certain amount of exasperation. Every so often, I cherish the hope that we will be sufficiently clever to gain insight into a certain period and do what we have to with it. I have already anticipated for quite some time that fair pricing would be a rational, intelligent debate and would deliver measures. When I see how long it all takes, that is when I start losing patience. If I can draw something of a comparison between the way in which the discussion on the changes in the agricultural policy is now taking place against the backdrop of the problems surrounding food safety – in Germany, among a number of other countries, my own included – then I predict than something similar will happen where the transport policy is concerned, and the environmental problems we are now experiencing, irrespective of the failed climate conferences, etc.

I am also exasperated at the fact that almost everyone still hides behind all kinds of issues to do with our supposed inability to establish the cost scientifically. We can do it for accidents all right, but not for other things. I have a problem with this. Again, there is more than enough data for us to make headway with this whole affair. I therefore hope concrete measures – of the kind, incidentally, that first featured in Mr Costa’s report and a number of which we quite deliberately re-submitted – will be included in the actual White Paper. Not that we expect everyone to go along with them, but the primary intention is to send out a signal to the Commission to attempt, in the meantime, to coordinate, if not harmonise, these measures – which will include a kilometre levy and so on – at European level, so as to avoid a situation where one country does take action and another does not. One country will say that none of this is scientifically feasible, while another will simply get on with implementation, which is a most curious state of affairs of course.

That is why we have put a number of subjects back on the table and we hope that some of them make it through. Apart from that, I wish everyone luck at the drafting stage.

  Ainardi (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I would also like to join Members in recognising the considerable work that has been carried out by the rapporteur and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, who have incorporated many amendments.

I would, however, like to come back to some points I think worth emphasising to make the report as effective as possible.

First of all, I feel it is imperative to point out that the main thing is to promote the sustainability of transport, which is a fundamental, long-term measure needed to protect our environment and avoid congestion. On this issue, I do not believe that it is possible to consider freight transport on the same level as private transport. The former is currently widely favoured as an economic activity, whereas the latter allows freedom of movement, a fundamental freedom. We must extend the quality choice range in the variety of transport available. That should then drive us to consider the need to improve services of general interest in these sectors that are so important to the people and to the economy.

Secondly, I also believe that we need to pinpoint priority issues. We cannot consider rail users and road users on the same level either. This means that the cost of road use is added to the total of costs borne by society such as environmental costs and the costs of accidents. All studies have clearly shown this. We must give this factor priority in terms of Community action.

To sum up, with regard to changes in charging, I believe that this type of charging should not further increase costs, particularly those paid by users. Any infrastructure charging system, like the one proposed in my group’s amendment, should improve the services of general interest, which some transport services provide, in order to offer all citizens equal access to high-quality, safe and affordable services.

  Van Dam (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, it may be common knowledge that our group is not convinced of the need for all the current competences. However, these go unchallenged in the sphere of the European transport policy. Yet this cross-border problem demands a cross-border solution. That is something we are all agreed on in this House.

That is why I am surprised that opinion is so divided on this. After all, we have agreed that we must strive for a sustainable transport policy, which allows for mobility both now and in the future.

Seen from this perspective, it is necessary for users of different forms of transport to foot the bill for the costs they incur, in order, in this way, to be able to repair the damage caused or prevent it from happening. This concerns both the internal costs of the infrastructure and the external costs, which are less easy to convert and allocate.

In the present resolution, the emphasis is very much on the internal costs, which can be quantified very precisely at this stage. Although these costs form a substantial part of the total costs incurred, it is wrong to suppose that this means the total costs are known. The lack of complete knowledge concerning the magnitude of a particular cost item is not a legitimate reason for excluding this item from the methodology to be devised. I can fully identify with Mr Bouwman’s amendments on this point, as I could with his contribution.

I would agree with those of you who have doubts, that passing on all costs incurred must not leave transport operators with such narrow margins as will put their livelihoods at risk. In order to avoid this, however, we must not attempt to keep transport prices as low as possible, thereby keeping the costs to be passed on as low as possible, but what we must do instead is offer the transport operators legal support with a view to passing the costs incurred onto the group that should by rights foot the bill, namely the end-users.

Finally, I would point out that the optimum situation from the competition viewpoint is when there is a level playing field for all transport modes. However, that must not be our sole point of departure. In our efforts to secure sustainable mobility, we must concentrate specifically on those forms of transport which do society and the environment the least damage. Supporting the development of such modes of transport may not be ideal from the competition perspective but is completely justifiable, also politically, given the goal to be achieved.

You will appreciate that I am unable to vote in favour of the present resolution as it stands.

  Lisi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to start by thanking the rapporteur both for the enormous amount of work he has done and also, in particular, for his willingness to accept the suggestions, amendments and proposals of all the rest of the committee, to the point that I feel this report can be said to be a highly collegial report produced by the committee as a whole. Moreover, the current situation is clear – the White Paper and the Green Paper illustrated it perfectly: there is a great problem because of the environmental and social costs we have to bear and because of the attack on free trade that the difference in taxes and taxation systems in our countries imposes upon their economic systems.

With this report, therefore, we have identified a possible situation, a road to take, and it is now up to the Commission to take it. I recall the benchmarks that we all share: greater proportionality with regard to use in the distribution of costs, attentiveness to social costs, but also protection of disadvantaged geographical areas and sectors of the population, "yes" to environmental sustainability but, at the same time, reconfirmation of the right to mobility as a universal right.

The only recommendation I would venture to make, Commissioner, is that all this is good, particularly the shift to the "user pays" principle, but with the reservation that we cannot allow this principle to penalise the citizens or businesses. Shifting to the "user pays" principle means entering into the rationale of providing a service for which a price is set, and we must therefore guarantee the citizens and businesses what they want and what they are willing to pay for: namely quality. Quality in the context of transport, in my opinion, means above all safety, accessibility and coordination of infrastructures. If we can provide this, then, at the same time, we will have overcome our present difficulties and set the wheels in motion for a new perspective for the future.

  Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to add to the praise for Mr Costa, the rapporteur, because this is an extremely difficult subject and there are very conflicting opinions. Furthermore, he has had many amendments to work through. When all is said and done, I believe that the text presented is clear and consistent – no mean feat. I think that this contribution by the European Parliament will enable the Commission to make good progress in its subsequent work.

The issue of infrastructure charging is perhaps one of the most difficult for the general public to understand, but it is perhaps also the key to achieving our objective of a sustainable freedom of movement, given that the number of people travelling and the amount of freight transported within the Union is expected to increase considerably. Today, we know that road travel produces the most pollution but that it is also cheaper in terms of both infrastructure financing, which is often funded by the community, and in terms of its use. Therefore, if we really wish to travel without causing so much damage to the environment, we will certainly need to establish charging; that is, how the various types of transport pay the real price of costs.

All the same, I believe that we must be very aware that the rail system is not and will not for many years be in a position to compete to a great extent with road transport, in particular in terms of freight transport or combined transport links, which are urgent priorities. There are still considerable infrastructure costs and infrastructure and investment needs, and rail companies’ profits do not provide enough to cover them. Compared to road tolls, those on the railways are still too high with a concomitant strain on operating costs.

The issue of charging is therefore absolutely central to this matter and if we really wish to improve transport we need to be in a position to absorb efficiently the external costs of transport; as mentioned; in other words, so that road transport actually pays for all the costs it entails, as does rail transport, and so that the prices charged accurately reflect this transparency regarding costs.

We should not, however, close our eyes to one political stumbling block in all this. The political stumbling block is that our fellow citizens want to travel. They believe that they have the right to freedom of movement, something I think we should bear in mind, and very often they do not differentiate freight transport and the private car. This was obvious last September.

Therefore, on a political level, we must take a cautious approach, which should be both gradual and selective. A gradual approach means that we cannot impose extra costs on road travel until the railway is in a position to take over from it, and for the time being the railway is not in any such position. A selective approach is needed, because I believe that we have to distinguish between private transport and goods transport and that we may also have to gradually introduce taxes on heavy goods vehicles, if we really wish to improve pollution in regions like ours, that act as crossroads.

  Lynne (ELDR). – Mr President, we must make it very clear that this is not about the EU raising taxes or imposing a new tax over and above the existing national taxes. It is an attempt to find a common set of criteria, of cost components for the transport infrastructure, and minimising substantial discrepancies across the EU.

However, it is up to the Member States to set and levy charges, albeit in a common framework. At present, revenue is not earmarked for transport infrastructure. Quite often, I know in the UK, it is used for bolstering government coffers. I am sure it is the same in other EU Member States. Transport costs should be paid by the user, but governments should not charge rural users if there is no public transport, and this report makes that very clear.

This report is about a level playing field: not to charge more but to charge more efficiently. Hauliers in the UK complain that they are at a competitive disadvantage, and that is true. Non-UK truck drivers do not pay UK road tax. Other EU countries' average is ten times lower HTV taxes. The same applies to diesel fuel: it is three times more expensive in the UK. That leads to distortion of competition across the EU. Instead of the UK Eurosceptics criticising this report, they should welcome it because it will do a lot to help our hard-pressed hauliers.

  Peijs (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, I have not yet reached the point that a number of people whom I have heard speak this evening have reached. As matters stand, infrastructure investments are made in waterways and other transport modes, for example. Nobody knows exactly how much is invested. On the other hand, the state receives revenue from transport, such as road tax. Nobody knows precisely how much this amounts to, but one thing we do know is that it is not directly re-invested in roads and other forms of infrastructure.

This report addresses the balance between revenue and expenditure; intangible costs such as environmental and noise-related costs are also taken into account. Some people also want to recoup the cost of traffic jams from those who get stuck in them, according to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. I think this is an excellent principle and I would like to see it applied in full, but not to traffic jams. Traffic jams are indicative of failed government policy on the infrastructure front, which is why the government itself, certainly in the Netherlands, must be regarded as the polluter.

This report talks about balancing the payment of social costs between the different modes of transport. Let us take a moment to consider the train in this light. Road transport always seemed to cause far more pollution than rail transport. Following research, this seems not to be the case. Now the question is: what are we actually seeking to achieve by making social costs visible in this way? Do we really want an objective, rational assessment of the costs of the transport modes, or, if certain results do not meet with our approval, for example if rail transport becomes prohibitively expensive as a result, will we end up making a political assessment? We want people to travel by train and so it must be made more affordable. That is fine by me, but not by using this method. We are not going to tax water and road transport heavily first on the basis of the theoretical model, and then spare the train. Road and passenger traffic already pay far more than their share in terms of social costs. So either we stop beating about the bush, so that everyone knows what they can be for or against, or we operate a well-balanced and proportional system with guarantees for the disabled, people who live in rural areas and have no choices, and the competition position of the Union.

Commissioner, I must say, this is a hornet’s nest you have got yourself into. Why should a system of this kind only be applied to the transport sector? Why should it not be applied to aluminium factories, hospitals, ski runs, hypermarkets, parliament buildings and high-voltage networks too?

  Izquierdo Collado (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Costa, but I would like to point out that he deserves congratulations not for his psychological capacity to unite wills, but for having included certain factors in the report which allow us all to be united.

I would like to highlight two of these factors, the ones which lead me to support the rest of his proposals. The first is that the report, “stresses that such methodology needs a gradual and step-wise implementation based on transparency and sufficient information.”

The second factor which leads me to approve this report is the subsidiarity issue, because, undoubtedly, Mr Costa’s report makes it absolutely clear – he has said this with complete transparency – that there is going to be an increase in the cost for users, as the cost of funding by the States is going to be passed on to users. We cannot ignore that fact. We therefore need this gradual implementation, which seems to me to be absolutely essential because, when we speak of tariffs in relation to internal and external costs, in the fullest sense of the word, which is currently difficult to define, we are talking about an increase in cost for the user.

Therefore, in fact, we are talking about favouring rail transport. I believe that this is one of the bases which justify the imposition of tariffs. The fact is that road transport – automobiles – have a clear and very serious environmental impact, so much so that they alone are replacing, and therefore increasing, what all the other industrial sectors are saving in terms of greenhouse gases.

The time has therefore come to tame the automobile. Nobody wants to be deprived of an automobile, but we must tame it. On the one hand, by means of research, aimed at reducing consumption. On the other hand, however, we must also influence drivers. It is clear that these tariffs are going to produce an increase in the cost to users so that they might consider the possibility of using public transport and the possibility of making more rational use of the railways – both for goods and for passenger transport. I believe that this is the key factor, which truly justifies the Commission and Mr Costa’s proposed imposition of tariffs. That is why we are going to support him but, of course, this gradual implementation seems to me to be fundamental to the consumer being able to accept and take this process on board.

  Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Costa on his handling of this difficult dossier. It is an intractable subject and the fact that there are 126 amendments shows how divided opinion is, but at least it has led to a more realistic position.

Broadly speaking, I would, in theory, agree with the report that we need to have a more accurate idea of the marginal social costs of transport. However, in practice, it would appear that such measures would be attended by unexpected and unintended effects. That is why a great deal more research will need to be done before the prices can be calculated correctly. I do not see eye to eye with Mr Bouwman on that score.

One of the undesirable effects is that the cost to roads will rise by a relatively small amount, around 10 to 15%. This contrasts with the 100% rise in the cost to rail, and the 50% rise in the cost to internal navigation. The desired modal shift will come under review again then.

My second concern is that the cost to transport will rise by a substantial amount. That would be to the detriment of Europe’s economic position. Finally, I do not go along with the rapporteur’s proposal to depart from the ‘user pays’ principle, in that he wants to grant extra assistance to remote regions, for example. Firstly we must consider in real terms whether this would lead to distortion of competition and an increase in the total costs. I am against cross-subsidies for the same reason.

  Stockmann (PSE) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the Costa report the discussion about a common framework for levying transport infrastructure charges has got going again. If we want a single market that works, we need a transport system that works, in which the conditions of competition are equal or at least comparable for all those involved in transport. The gradual harmonisation of transport infrastructure charges is the most important step towards that.

The way we agree to calculate costs is certainly important to the maintenance, operation and new development of infrastructure whether full costs or marginal costs, social marginal costs or social net costs. But almost more important in terms of equal opportunities in competition is that we reach agreement, and do so as fast as possible. Yet we must remember one thing. If we want to see fair competition between the various transport modes too then we need to go on discussing the implementation of the external costs. To prevent that discussion also means preventing the integration of the various modes of transport and is therefore no more than lobbying, or a policy of lobbying for the status quo. I will fight out the question of who is holding sham debates in this House with Mr Jarzembowski elsewhere; at present I only have two minutes' speaking time.

For heavy goods transport we urgently need a Europe-wide, kilometre-based heavy goods charge; here we could also envisage reducing the motor vehicle taxes. Many transport associations are themselves seeing it that way now. Only if we charge transport costs on the "user pays" principle can we obtain a market-compatible instrument to tackle the emerging crisis in goods transport, for we all know about the next leaps in goods transport costs: rising costs as a result of enlargement eastward, of e-commerce, and that is on top of the rates of increase we have seen up to now.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Costa for his magnificent report and all the speakers for participating in this debate. I am happy to be able to say that the Commission has received the report and its conclusions with great satisfaction. I am aware of the great amount of work and the enormous effort that the rapporteur, Mr Costa, has put in to trying to achieve the greatest possible consensus, and for which he has been praised by Mr Jarzembowski and other speakers. I would like to say that, with regard to such a sensitive and thorny issue as charging for infrastructures, it is a great achievement – and I stress this – to have almost squared the circle, because it is really difficult to reach a consensus on a proposal such as this.

This report is based on a series of seminars with the members of the Commission’s own high level group on charging for infrastructures and on an information conference on best practice in charging for infrastructures. By this I mean that this is a well-worked, well-informed and studied document and we owe that firstly to Mr Costa and to the other speakers who have shown their great interest in such a thorny and difficult issue. The report is therefore well-worked and makes a solid contribution to the understanding of the policy of charging for infrastructures as well as its application, a key issue in the orientation of transport policy and in making progress with a policy which guarantees lasting transport and mobility for the future and in dealing in a rational way with the extraordinary demand to which we are going to have to find a solution in the years to come.

The report also coincides with the Commission’s policy on charging for transport infrastructures. The Commission believes that the lack of coordination in fiscal policies, the lack of coordination in Member States’ charging, hinders the efficiency of transport operations and restricts the development of the single market and economic integration. Whatever the treatment of the different means of transport, it imposes real costs on European companies and on society in general.

Consequently, the Commission has proposed the gradual implementation – and I am sorry that Mr Izquierdo has left, because he has not seen that not only has Mr Costa accepted that amendment, but that the Commission is happy that he has – of a harmonised framework for charging for infrastructures in the European Union which is applicable to all means of transport. The Commission’s policy of charging for infrastructures provides a framework for the reform of charges and taxes on transport, with a view to reflecting environmental costs, infrastructure costs and the cost of managing demand for transport.

Progress has been made, as in the case of the approval in December of the measures on railway infrastructures through the conciliation procedure. A great deal, however, remains to be done. I am therefore pleased to be able to assure Parliament that the concerns highlighted in the report in relation to charging for infrastructures will be taken fully into account in the next Commission White Paper on the common transport policy, which I referred to previously and which, although somewhat later than the dates initially envisaged, will enable us to make progress in solving one the most complex problems of that transport policy: charging for infrastructures. All of that will be possible thanks to the magnificent work of the Members of this Parliament and Mr Costa in particular.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mrs de Palacio.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

(The sitting was closed at 11.40 p.m.)⁽¹⁾

(1) Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes.