Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001002.8.1-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Piecyk for his work. The issue of inland ports and intermodal terminals is very complex and I would like to stress that a broad consensus has been achieved. We all agree that the trans-European network must be a multimodal network. We also believe that we all agree that it must include the main points of connection, and that we consider that the current provisions of the trans-European networks on ports are not satisfactory and that strengthening the role of ports within the network will also serve to consolidate the trans-European networks.
Lastly, with regard to Community spending and public aid and the issue involving competences, we believe that it is also important, that it should be debated in the future and, to this end, we believe that we should work to reach a solution on this and the other remaining problems, taking account of the interests of all parties, and we believe that agreement is possible on the basis of Parliament’s excellent work.
I believe that Parliament and the Commission broadly agree on most of the areas under discussion. We agree that the inclusion of too many ports in the network may affect this concept of ‘trans-European’ and that, therefore, the most strategically important inland ports should be included. I also believe that Parliament and the Commission agree that inland terminals are an important part of the network and play a fundamental role in the whole process.
We are not discussing economic aid today, but I would like to mention on this point that we believe that this economic support should be utilised correctly and not be directed towards superstructure projects which may, at the end of the day, have a negative effect on competition. Nevertheless, there are certain points on which it will be difficult to make progress, since, while we can make progress between Parliament and the Commission, we should not forget the fundamental role of the Council in this decision-making process.
I shall make some comments about the main amendments. Amendment No 4: to increase the threshold for inland ports from 300 to 500 tonnes. This proposal is perfectly acceptable to the Commission. Mr Piecyk’s report justifies this idea by saying that the trans-European networks should not have to include an excessive number of installations.
For the Commission, the ideal solution would be to only include ports which, as well as complying with these limits, are equipped with transhipment facilities. We believe that this point of view is not accepted by the Council, but we consider that the quantity is not sufficient in itself. We believe that we have to introduce both qualitative and quantitative elements.
Seaports: Amendments Nos 5, 9 and 10. We could also accept the idea of increasing the threshold to one and a half million tonnes or two hundred thousand passengers and we could also agree to the removal of classifications by categories implemented by the Council. This point will certainly be the subject of further debate by the Council.
Amendments Nos 6 and 7 reintroduce the map of inland terminals and are acceptable to the Commission. However, we believe that the most important issue is to highlight the fact that inland terminals are an integral part of the network, and it does not seem relevant to us whether they appear on a map or not. We consider that to be a problem of secondary importance. The important thing is clearly that they form part of the network. We feel that perhaps the intermediate solution could be to abandon the map of intermodal terminals and draw up more precisely, more thoroughly, if you like, the guidelines emphasising that intermodal terminals form part of the network, and not to enter into a debate on the map, which would make things more difficult.
The problem of superstructures excluded from Community funding: Amendments Nos 8 and 10. The Commission can also support these amendments and it is true that, nevertheless, we believe that this debate may raise some difficulties. We support the aim of the amendments but, nevertheless, we cannot support their wording. On the one hand, because we believe it is inappropriate to talk about the funding of these guidelines and, secondly, because we do not believe it is necessary to make this reference. It is the case that the types of project which Parliament is referring to when it talks of superstructures are not included in the projects of common interest and do not therefore have funding. This is therefore, to a certain extent, an unnecessary debate.
A comment on Amendment No 15: as an objective, this amendment is acceptable to the Commission. We believe that the idea is correct, although we believe that here also we should analyse the wording with a little more care in order to prevent problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples