Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.5.3-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like firstly to thank you for all your speeches and in particular, of course, the rapporteur, Mr Bradbourn, for the work he has done, which I know has been extraordinary, as well as the whole Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, which has reworked the amendments and produced great European added value and very interesting proposals.
In the first part of Amendment No 19, relating to project 6, that is, Lyon-Turin-Trieste-Koper-Ljubljana-Budapest, it would be a question of specifying that the railway line from Trieste to Ljubljana should pass through Divaca and that the line between Venice and Trieste should pass through south Ronchi. The Commission has difficulties here, because the countries affected are not expressing their agreement. We are talking about modifications which consist of establishing a route with differences of 20 km to the north or to the south, as happens for example in the case of south Ronchi. In the rough sketch we have on our map it is not clear whether it goes a little further north or a little further south. At the end of the day this will depend on the will of the specific country and the routes which can be defined in accordance with environmental and all other types of criteria. Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult for the States to accept it as it is. And the same is the case with the proposal that the Trieste-Ljubljana route should pass through Divaca. Slovenia says that it has difficulties accepting it. Let me make it very clear that the Commission has no problem, but that the problem is with the countries affected themselves, and we are talking about modifications of 20 km, of going into the details of important routes. I would insist that the Commission has no problem but that we need the agreement of the States in question.
Certain amendments involve adding projects or sections which have already been carefully assessed by the Van Miert Group. With regard to these, if the criteria of Article 19 are met, including the firm commitment on the part of the States to carry them out, the Commission is fully prepared to facilitate this agreement. But only two projects have been analysed in accordance with this criterion: one is the Sena-Escalda river project, which does not appear to pose any problem, because the Council accepted it at the meeting on 5 December, and naturally if Parliament proposes it, the Commission has no problem. And the second project is Amendment No 26, relating to the Prague-Linz link. I know that this is very important for certain Members of Parliament. On this line we may very possibly be given the green light by the countries in question, but I am not so sure that we will be given the green light from them for the rest of the project. I would therefore ask you, ladies and gentlemen, not to vote for this project or, at least, only to consider the first part. Naturally, the Commission will accept what the countries affected say in the Council, because we cannot go against their opinion.
Other amendments introduce significant modifications which have not been assessed by the Van Miert Group, such as the Marseilles-Turin railway line, referred to in Amendment No 19, and which has been rejected; the same is the case with the Haparanda line, referred to in Amendment No 47. These projects were not initially presented by the States in question and do not fulfil all the selection criteria in Article 19, in particular, the commitment of the States of the Union to a timetable. In accordance with the spirit of Article 156 of the Treaty, the guidelines for the projects require the approval of the State in question, and the Commission must therefore oppose these amendments.
Other amendments propose routes in third countries. In this case, the Commission cannot include routes which cross third countries in the trans-European networks, but we are aware of the problem posed by the existence following enlargement of an enclave surrounded by Union territory. In Compostela, in June, we will meet with the chiefs of the various pan-European corridors in order to review them, bearing in mind that two-thirds of those corridors, following enlargement to 27 States, will be within the Union and will be trans-European networks, which is what we are approving today. In that review of the pan-European corridors we will have to deal specifically and very dynamically with those works which represent a connection of European territory via non-European territory, as in the case of certain countries of the former Yugoslavia in the Balkans region.
Ladies and gentlemen, certain amendments propose withdrawing or removing parts already integrated within the proposals of the Commission's Van Miert group and approved by the Council. These amendments, which the Commission cannot accept, are Amendments Nos 1, 7, 20 and 25. The projects included in Annex III, I would insist, are based on economic studies and political approval from both the Van Miert group and the Council.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has been requested that in relation to motorways of the sea there should be explicit mention of Spain and Portugal rather than saying ‘the south of Europe’; this is what Mr Camisón said. I am going to check this but, as far as I know, it remains in the proposals. With regard to the central crossing of Vignemal, the central crossing of the Pyrenees, I would insist that we must respect the will of the States. We must try to encourage them, but we must respect what the Treaties say: that without the agreement of a State works cannot be carried out on their territory.
I would like to end by once again thanking the honourable Members and saying to you that, as you can see, the positions of the Commission and the Council offer a degree of flexibility in order to take up some of the proposals and contributions of this Parliament which improve the initial text and which, furthermore, respect the balance between the institutions.
I would ask Parliament to understand that this margin for flexibility exists, but that it is impossible to entirely reconsider the fundamental points and the whole range of proposals for these new trans-European networks, which we must approve urgently so that, from 1 May 2004, when we are 25 countries rather than 15, the ten new Member States are included in them, since they will be part of the Union as a whole.
I would like to thank Mr Bradbourn and the whole of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for their work.
I would like to say to the honourable Members that yesterday, on the occasion of the meeting of the Council of Ministers for Transport, I said that if the Council had modified the Commission’s initial proposed projects – even if it was a single modification, dealt with and supported by the Van Miert Group, but which had not initially been given the green light by the States – we would have to allow Parliament to act in a similar way.
In other words, to incorporate and where necessary amend the projects, provided that they had been considered by the high-level Van Miert Group, discussed by the representatives of all the States – also by the EIB and others – and furthermore given the green light by the States in question. I also told them that it was not a question of substantially modifying Annex III nor all the projects, but of allowing Parliament its prerogatives, that is to say, the capacity to make contributions to the proposals for the trans-European networks. In this regard, I noted the degree of flexibility on the part of the Council, a constructive flexibility, which could be interpreted as indicating, ‘we have also been very respectful; it has been an exceptional case; the issue cannot now suddenly be reopened’. And it is within the context of this balance that we have to operate.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that, as well as the specific modifications to specific projects, which I will refer to at the end of my speech, there are various amendments in your proposals which refer to general issues and many of them have been accepted. In this regard, I am happy to tell you that the majority of those intended to clarify the text of the proposed Decision can be accepted by the Commission. For example, Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 (first part), 12 (second part), 16 and 17; others can be accepted with certain modifications of the wording such as, for example, No 10 (first and second part) and No 40, in relation to the reference to environmental analyses; it is clear that all projects funded by the Commission must respect the environmental legislation in force; that is an obligation. The Commission therefore accepts the addition of the reference in the text aimed at emphasising this aspect, as in the case of Amendments Nos: 33, 34, 37, 42, 43 and 44. With regard to the other amendments, some cannot be accepted because they have already been implicitly included in the proposal and are therefore superfluous; for example, Amendments Nos 11 (second part), 12 (first part), 18 and 21. Other amendments have been rejected because they go beyond the scope of the proposed Decision; for example, Amendments Nos 2 and 13 (second part). Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 15 do not precisely correspond to the objectives of the proposal and, therefore, it is not appropriate to accept them. With regard to Amendment No 7, we cannot accept it in its entirety, because we do not believe we should extend the concept of ‘motorways of the sea’ so far, since ultimately that would reduce the strength achieved by concentrating and selecting specific projects; nevertheless, there is one part I would like to refer to which we can accept and which relates to Amendment No 22 by Mr Jarzembowski, and that is that we could include an express reference to the fact that motorways of the sea will include canals linking two seas. I believe that this makes sense and we can include this modification.
We should not remove the open procedure for competition, that is the announcement of proposals. Ladies and gentlemen, we must not hand out the motorways of the sea just to people we know, because that would be entirely contrary to our approach. What we must do is open up the contracts to competition, because that is the only way to maintain balanced systems, to gain the greatest advantages offered by the various opportunities and maintain the basic principles of the Treaties. We must guarantee transparency and competition, and that means we must make open tenders, announcements and proposals.
The economic conditions are specified in the financial Regulation and not in this document. With regard to the European coordinator, as I indicated previously, the Commission accepts Amendments Nos 9 and 10, with certain clarifications, while Amendment No 8 cannot be accepted as such by the Commission, which does not mean that this Parliament will not be informed of the appointment of coordinators, but that the Commission will inform Parliament of the appointments as and when they are agreed.
With regard to Annex III, as I said, the Commission's view is that the debate should not be reopened but that it should maintain a degree of flexibility because, I would insist, this House co-legislates on an entirely equal footing with the Council. The Council has reopened it and, therefore, we believe that we must provide a margin for flexibility. Furthermore, the Council has heard the Commission's argument. In this regard I would like to say that four amendments which contain modifications or details of routes for projects already included in Annex III, proposed by the Commission, must be accepted, provided that the countries in question accept those modifications. Because we cannot do anything against their will. And in reply to Mr Ferrández Lezaun, you have no idea how much I understand you. Unfortunately, this is not the only case; when one is in my position one realises that this is not the only country, nor the Pyrenees the only border, where situations of, shall we say, asynchrony, or lack of coordination of times, arise, and that is bad for everybody.
We cannot therefore make modifications which are not accepted by the countries. In this regard, yesterday we were trying to reach an agreement with the countries on the modifications of this nature they would be prepared to accept. I have received certain replies which I will mention to you. For example, the first part of Amendment No 22 could be accepted, that is to say, in relation to the linking of the two canals, either because we present it black on white, or because we present it in a general manner, but, in this case, the countries in question are prepared to include it.
The first part of Amendment No 20, Algeciras-Bobadilla, which is a mixed project, not as it is at the moment, when it is considered as transport; it is already included in project 19 and what we must do is include it as part of Sines-Madrid-Paris, the great cargo route and we have the green light here as well. The second part of Amendment No 22, the Baltic Motorway of the Sea, project 21, can go as far as the North Sea; its name will be changed to ‘Baltic-North Sea Motorway of the Sea’ and we also have the green light from the countries in question."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples