Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001002.8.1-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to make a general comment about the procedural position here, as it seems to me a classic example of how codecision should not be conducted. Following the first reading in Parliament, it took a year before we received the Council's common position, which takes almost no account at all of Parliament's views. And now, because of the timescales involved, such as the intervening summer recess, the situation is that Parliament has virtually no alternative but to repeat its position at first reading, with the result that we will all be merrily wending our way to the conciliation procedure.
This really is not how the codecision procedure should be conducted, at least not in my opinion. I am directing this comment to the Council: since Amsterdam there has been an ever increasing flow of legislative work on transport in particular. We would save time, money and energy procedurally speaking if the Council could appreciate and accept that a common position is not the end point of the decision-making process. It is an important stage in that process, but the process then continues and it must then come before Parliament.
What is this all about? During the first trans-European network round, the issue of ports remained unresolved. At that time, the Commission undertook to prepare an appropriate proposal on ports. It has done that and has also extended the proposal to include not only seaports, but also inland ports and intermodal terminals, including Project No 8 of the 14 major projects in Essen, which is to be modified. Parliament has welcomed the Commission's approach of bringing together seaports, inland ports and terminals, because these are interrelated interconnection points in the transport network. The Council has only accepted certain parts of Parliament's proposals and totally departs from Parliament's criteria for interconnection points.
I wish to concentrate on the most important aspects. First, seaports. Parliament would like the criteria here to be a traffic volume of 1.5 million tonnes and 200 000 passengers, and also, as a vital and key criterion, a connection with another trans-European network. The Council wants a maximum of 1 million tonnes without a connection to other trans-European networks. However, this means that in my own dearly beloved Schleswig-Holstein, the region I come from, a place like Langballigau, which has at most one bridge and two bollards where a ship can tie up, has overnight turned into a European seaport, which is pure nonsense. Parliament simply cannot allow something like this to go through.
In the case of inland ports, Parliament would like the criterion to be an annual traffic volume of 500 000 tonnes, as against the Council's criterion of just 300 000. The result is that an additional 200 smaller ports would be included. There would be so many and they would be so small you would need a magnifying glass to find them. That is not acceptable. I believe that if we are talking about a trans-European network, the seaports and inland ports involved should meet minimum requirements for European transport functions.
Parliament has endorsed the inclusion of intermodal terminals, whereas the Council completely disagreed with this, although terminals will of course have a far more significant part to play in future European transport policy than they perhaps do at present. Ports are in competition with each other, and that is a good thing. But in order to guarantee a level playing field Parliament requested that we should not be promoting superstructure investments but, at most, investment in infrastructure. The Council has so far not been able to accept this basic concern, and neither has the Commission, by the way. So we must work together to find solutions that will ensure a level playing field in terms of infrastructure.
One point that I welcome here is that the Council has evidently accepted the modification of Project No 8. Parliament is in agreement with this. However, this also means that the Council has finally accepted that codecision should also apply to the 14 important Essen projects.
Whatever we agree tomorrow will ultimately have to go into the conciliation procedure. I would specifically like to acknowledge the French Presidency's efforts to establish a common approach at this early stage. The Council is being somewhat obstructive here. My thanks also go to the Commission's officials, who have already been very helpful on this. Nevertheless, it would have been good if everything could have proceeded a little faster than it has in the event. And last but not least I would like to thank my fellow Members in the committee, who have all pulled in the same direction. I would like to comment on Amendment No 15. The peripheral areas have been omitted from the English translation again, it is the original German version that applies. I hope that the Sittings Service will put this right so that the peripheral areas are once again referred to in all versions. And I would once again like to sincerely thank my colleagues in the committee for their cooperation. I hope that after tomorrow's vote we will be able to move promptly on to the conciliation procedure and not drag things out for the full six weeks."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples