Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-265"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.10.3-265"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I must admit, it is a wonderful feeling to be able to speak at this hour to such a large audience and it will perhaps be even more wonderful tomorrow, when a report is finally adopted, because it has been a long haul. In 1996, at the end of the conciliation procedure, we had the Commission communication on improving ports in the trans-European networks. Then a proposal was submitted at a very late stage and in March 1999 we had the first reading, which is when we should really have discussed the review of the TEN. Then the Council took its time. In October 2000, we had the second reading and it was only under the pressure of the conciliation procedure that we held a proper discussion and moved any closer to the Council’s standpoint. It could all have been much quicker and simpler and, in the meantime, it is now 2001. Nonetheless, I think the end is in sight.
We now have a reasonable classification of ports as international – Community – ports and regional ports, with acceptable categories for tonnage and passenger volumes. The same applies to inland ports with a volume of 500 000 tonnes of freight, which I think is a proper order of magnitude. We have mainly included ports and inland ports as nodes in the trans-European networks, i.e. they act as nodal points for the rest of the trans-European connections. We have included intermodal terminals in the text, so that, as a carrier, combined transport supports the railways and inland waterways and underlines their particular importance.
After lengthy discussion, we also have a perfectly proper and reasonable definition as to what constitutes infrastructure and what can and cannot be aided in ports and inland ports. At the same time, we have amended Project No 8, one of the major projects of the Essen Council’s 14 projects, which was later confirmed in Dublin, in close harmony in the codecision procedure, which was very difficult at the time. I am particularly pleased that the Commission has promised to include the Elbe-Lübeck Canal in its proposal at the next revision. I am also grateful, Commissioner, to your comrades-in-arms at the Commission, who were extremely helpful in the closing stage, coming forward with one new proposal after another, so that, in the end, we did not need to go right through with the conciliation procedure and were able to reach an agreement before then.
If I may add a comment: in my view, we overestimated the TEN somewhat right from the outset. We said both in Committee and in Parliament: let us set our sights a little lower! These errors should not be repeated during the revision. The Commission tabled some excellent proposals on the trans-European networks in the initial stages of the consultation and we should revert to them. That means not just stringing and stitching together what the Member States provide you with; it also means that the Commission should set its own priorities. As we spend so much time here talking about special dossiers, about rail and water, I hope, Commissioner, that the priority of rail and water in the TEN will be reflected in the Commission proposal.
I think that, on balance – even if it has taken a long time – we have done a good job. I should like to thank everyone who was involved, my fellow members in Parliament, the Commission and the French Presidency of the Council for bringing it all to a successful conclusion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples