Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.5.3-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to express my sincere gratitude for the work accomplished by Mr Hatzidakis, chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the review of the trans-European networks which, in the coming months, I will have to present to this House. I believe that his work will contribute decisively to the documents which the Commission will produce. I would also like to express my thanks for the contribution made by Mrs Sbarbati, draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, as well as for the interventions of the other speakers who have participated in this debate.
In reply to some of the questions raised, I would like to tell you that, with regard to the changes to the financial rules for the trans-European networks approved last year, new financing possibilities were created by means of partnerships between the public and private sectors. These partnerships will be promoted in various ways. Firstly, thanks to the introduction of a multiannual indicative programme which will allow for private sector support with greater security and where the developers will enjoy guaranteed Community funding for several years. That programme will cover the period 2001-2006. Secondly, the budget line for trans-European networks will contribute risk capital financing, which could promote – and I hope this is the case – the creation of investment funds geared to the TENs and, to this end, we have already asked for expressions of interest.
We are about to review the guidelines on the trans-European transport networks. I will be presenting this review report and an initial proposal shortly. However, it must be said that the objectives of the trans-European networks are the development of the single market and social and economic cohesion. I would like to make this very clear. Therefore, the remote regions, the extremely remote regions and the least developed regions must be at the heart of Community action. However, resolving bottlenecks does not harm the remote regions. I would like to give one very clear example: the bottleneck on the railway in Bordeaux. Does this affect France? Yes, of course it affects south-west France, but only to a degree. Its real impact is on the whole of the centre and west of the Iberian Peninsula, that is, most of Spain and Portugal. So when we clear a bottleneck in Bordeaux, we are in fact benefiting the development of an area of the Iberian Peninsula. What I mean to say is that acting in a central area does not always harm the interests of the remote areas, but, on the contrary, in many cases it is perfectly interrelated.
Mr President, lastly, I would like to refer to the question of the intelligent management of traffic. This aspect will also be included as a key element in the review of the trans-European networks.
I would like to congratulate Mr Hatzidakis once again and express my gratitude for his work as well as that of the other speakers.
I believe that, as well as analysing the situation, the most important thing is to look to the future. Accordingly, I will take this opportunity to make some observations on behalf of the Commission. Firstly, I fully agree with Mr Hatzidakis on the importance given to Community policy on trans-European networks and I also share Parliament’s concern, expressed not only by Mr Hatzidakis, but also by the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets and by other MEPs, on the need for this policy to be provided with adequate financial resources.
In this respect, I would like to thank Parliament for its support for the provision of a total of EUR 4.6 billion for the period 2000-2006 for this chapter. Nevertheless, I should remind Members that, every year, the Commission gives consideration to projects which amount to three times the amount allocated annually in this budget. At the same time, there is an agreement by all parties not to increase the overall budgets and, in this respect, you have also heard my colleague, Mrs Schreyer, talk of our current budgetary difficulties resulting from new needs and matters of urgency, such as meeting the Union’s main political commitments following the war in Kosovo. In this respect, I share the European Parliament’s concern with regard to the adequate funding of transport networks, but I believe that we can jointly assume some of these responsibilities.
I would like to remind you that we know that Community support for projects carried out during 1996, 1997 and 1998 has accounted for 30% of the total, which is a very significant figure. It is true that these include projects in Objective 1 areas and cohesion countries, which has allowed the percentage of cofinancing to be greater. However, I must tell you that we cannot provide you with overall information, because we are not only talking about Community finance but also about finance provided by individual countries and private sectors in some cases, as well as regions and local authorities. Therefore, we can only provide the information which is available to us and make analyses based on that data.
We therefore reiterate something that Mr Jarzembowski said, which is that some of those responsible are from outside the Commission and, of course, the will of the different Member States of the Union to promote and implement these projects is of crucial importance.
You say that some projects are being delayed. In this regard, I would like to say that the target date is 2010. There is therefore still time to implement them within the time limit. Furthermore, some of the projects present great technical difficulties. I will concentrate for a moment on one of the most talked-about projects: the Brenner base-level tunnel. That tunnel is a symbolic project as far as the European Union’s technological capacities and its ability to act are concerned. We are talking about 54 kilometres of tunnel in one of our most mountainous areas, with a series of unknown factors and uncertainties which require that the project be guaranteed as far as possible before we make such a huge investment as the one required for the Brenner tunnel.
In order to carry out the Channel Tunnel project, it was necessary to carry out major studies before establishing the routes and detailing and beginning the project. This is also true in the case of the Brenner. It is perhaps better to begin something late, but to begin with all the guarantees in place, than to find half way through that the studies have not warned us of some difficulty or other, meaning that we have to go into reverse, which would cause even greater delays.
In fact, new studies are under way, through an agreement between a group of interested parties, to determine the definitive route of the Brenner tunnel. It has not been abandoned, it is just that it is an enormously complex project, ladies and gentlemen, and we must understand that these studies will probably take a further five years to complete. I want to make this very clear. We are talking about very far-off dates, but this does not mean that there is no will. On the contrary, there is an absolute will. This must, however, be based on the certainty that the project can be carried out in a way which will not damage our credibility.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the level of funding in terms of the total appropriations for the 14 principal TEN projects has been 60%. That was the percentage which you, the Parliament, considered appropriate in your most recent resolutions. It is midway between your initial proposal and the Council’s proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples