Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-343"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.25.2-343"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the report by Mr Mauro which has just been debated is a high-quality report. I would like once again to thank Mr Mauro, as well as the members of the Committee on Budgets, of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for supporting the Commission’s proposal.
With regard to environmental considerations, I would confirm the Commission’s commitment fully to respect the existing requirements, while avoiding introducing into the regulation the whole list of provisions appearing in the legislative texts. It is very clear that the trans-European networks must provide a model in environmental terms.
I was amazed just now, Mr President: Mr Henin – he has left, fortunately perhaps! – was entirely mistaken, since the meeting I was invited to specifically gave me the opportunity to explain that transporting everything by road creates major problems in terms of the environment and mobility in Europe in the future. At that meeting, therefore, contrary to what Mr Henin said, I defended the interests of rail freight and I would point out that, in the trans-European networks, most of the corridors are intended for railways. I would also like to say in this regard that we obviously very much want to be in a position to encourage the implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System, the ERTMS, since it is by means of this system that we shall guarantee interoperability for the whole of the European rail system.
I do not want to say any more at this hour, Mr President. I would repeat that this proposal is an ambitious one in terms of supporting the trans-European networks. It is a key element in terms of European integration, the internal market and the Lisbon Strategy. In my view, it is essential that Parliament support this proposal. I would state very clearly that the time has come to send a strong message to the Council, Mr President. The excellent report by Mr Mauro will undoubtedly contribute to a successful codecision procedure.
Some of you have just mentioned the failings of the Essen programme. I believe that today we have presented a number of provisions, in very close cooperation with your Committee on Transport and Tourism, so that, quite rightly, these priority projects may truly be accomplished with the guarantee of respecting a certain number of deadlines. All of this clearly depends to a very large extent on the financial perspective, but what we can say this evening is that if, thanks to Parliament and thanks to the Commission, the financial perspective is sufficient to cover Europe’s needs, Mr President, we will then be in a position to create these trans-European networks effectively, which will undoubtedly be a determining factor for the single market and for mobility in Europe. I would like to thank you once again and I would like to thank Parliament for the attention and interest you have applied to this project, for which Mr Mauro has been an excellent rapporteur.
With regard to the other amendments, Mr President, I shall communicate our detailed position to you if you like. I have commented on some of the main amendments, but we shall submit this list to you in order not to delay the closure of this debate.
Your reactions today demonstrate how close to your hearts this subject is. This is entirely logical, since in the enlarged Europe – and I have been particularly interested to listen to those of you who have spoken on behalf of the new Member States – the trans-European networks are one of the key elements in terms of European integration, the internal market and the Lisbon Strategy.
There is a broad consensus between our two institutions on the objectives to be achieved. I would like the final decisions that will be taken with regard to the new financial perspective to take full account of this priority and to avoid disappointment, as Mr Savary in particular has said, quite rightly pointing out that it was undoubtedly rather risky to present a proposal before having the financial perspective. But I would respond to Mr Savary, and to all of you, by saying that it is Parliament and the Commission that I believe must do everything possible to ensure that the financial perspective is sufficient to meet the needs of this Europe, which many of you have described very well.
A word now on the budgetary envelope. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the proposal sets a global envelope of EUR 20.69 billion in commitment appropriations for the period 2007-2013, of which EUR 20.35 billion is intended for the ‘transport’ section and 340 million for the ‘energy’ section. The Commission is delighted that you fully support this approach to transport.
I would note however that it has been proposed, within the context of the work of the temporary committee on the new financial perspective and the resolution adopted by your Parliament, to reduce the budget proposed for the Energy-TENs (cf. Amendment 34). I should point out that this sum would be below the current 155 million covering the period 2000-2006, even though the Union now has 10 more Members. If Parliament were to confirm this, it would be difficult for the Energy-TENs to have an impact on the development of the energy networks at a time when the world energy situation requires that we strengthen gas and electricity infrastructures, which contribute directly to the security of our energy supply. Furthermore, the sum requested is justified by the need to support, in certain well-justified cases, investments made beyond the study phase. I would repeat, therefore, that the Commission wishes to maintain the sum proposed.
I would like to return to the possibility that you propose of funding projects crossing natural barriers at a rate of 50%. These are Amendments 19 and 20. The Commission’s proposal proposes that this type of project may be subject to funding at a rate of 30% of the total cost of the project, while the exceptional maximum rate of 50% – and I mean exceptional – should be reserved for the cross-border sections of priority projects. Indeed, experience has shown us that the Member States concentrate their financial resources on the sections of priority projects located in their own national territory, while, in the case of cross-border sections, there are generally significant delays. By increasing the rate of Community funding for this type of section, the Commission wishes to apply a lever effect in order to promote the implementation of these projects. That is why the Commission is not in a position to accept your amendment aimed at extending this maximum rate reserved for cross-border sections to natural barriers.
Let us make this clear: the budget of EUR 20.3 billion, which the Commission has proposed for the Transport-TENs, will not allow us to use the 50% everywhere. We will only be able to help certain cross-border projects in this way, since it is truly in the Community interest to carry out these projects. If we accept the concept of a natural barrier, that could also involve sections of projects within Member States, for example when as a result of a geographical constraint, a mountain, a river or the sea, a structure needs to be built. It is true that this increases costs, but I very much regret to say that we do not have sufficient resources to implement this provision, if it is voted for. I understand this since I myself am from a mountainous country, but I truly believe that we should reserve the maximum rate for the cross-border sections of priority projects.
My third comment relates in particular to Amendment 22 and the principle of the non-accumulation of Community aid. If we were to remove this principle of non-accumulation of Community aid, we would be acting contrary to the financial regulation applicable to the general budget. But of course that does not mean that the different sections of a particular project could not be financed via the different Community financial instruments and that the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund could not be used for each of these sections!
You also want the multi-annual indicative programme to be subject to approval by the Council and the European Parliament. The definition of the multi-annual indicative programme is an implementing measure, in that the European Parliament and the Council, in the guidelines on the trans-European transport and energy networks, have already established the priorities. The allocation of financial resources by means of the multi-annual programme must be based on technical assessments of the state of progress of the projects, amongst the priorities set by Parliament and the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples