Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001002.8.1-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to say a few words, first of all thanks to Mr Piecyk, who had to finish this report in a very short space of time, and who burnt the midnight oil more than once in the process.
The Green Group has a love-hate relationship with transport. After all, transport creates pollution but there are certain modes of transport which create more pollution than others. This means that we do not wholeheartedly endorse all elements of the TENs, but we do if they involve the development of the less polluting alternatives, for example the development of ports, the development and promotion of inland shipping and the use of intermodal terminals.
With regard to that element of those ports, if you consider the Council’s viewpoint on ports – and this has been put in more than one way – the quantitative criterion used is, in my opinion, too sweeping and too vague, which results in a situation in which some ports in the German Wadden area and some in the Netherlands, such as the port of Scheveningen, which is a small fishing port, have now been elevated to the status of ports which would be required to play a role in the trans-European network. This is simply taking things too far, in my book.
In this sense, I wholeheartedly support the rapporteur’s view, but I should add that, actually, if you look for something which is also lacking in the Council’s position, then I would say that the Council is underplaying the significance of intermodal terminals and, above all, the multimodal terminals, for they are much talked about in this Chamber. As a result, we are lacking the qualitatively sound arguments for incorporating ports, often located on the fringes – as was mentioned a moment ago – into this scheme. In addition to the quantitative criteria, a number of qualitative criteria will need to be developed. But we will soon be entering conciliation when we will need to consider this issue in depth.
I am delighted that at least the rapporteur has put this intermodal transport – Mr Jarzembowski worded it very well – very much on the agenda. I believe that this will become one of the bones of contention which we will hopefully – with or without a conference – be able to bring to a successful conclusion.
I am extremely pleased that, in addition to this, all of the reports on strategic effects have been included. I hope that they will not be the sacrificial lamb of the conciliation procedure.
As for the superstructure and its funding, I can understand very well why we are not incorporating superstructure, the definition of which is, in fact, far from agreed, into a non-transparent and vague financing method for ports. The port structure and its correct definition is the first step, a superstructure the second. In my view, we should be looking at how we can add more detail in the meantime."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples