Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-26-Speech-2-154"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2005 budget procedure2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041026.12.2-154"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-10-26-Speech-2-1552
lpv:speaker	lp:Mathieu Grosch2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; REGI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Soziale Partei (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, we too in the Committee on Transport and Tourism would like to thank Commissioner Schreyer for the work she has done. The same is true of us as of the other committees: sometimes our expectations are greater than the funds available to us, and that is why, rather than setting new priorities, we have tried at least to allocate the necessary funds to what has been agreed jointly by the Council, the Commission and Parliament, so that the public can have confidence that what you announce will then be done. I want to give three examples of this, and one thing they relate to is safety and the environment. Frequent reference has been made to the agencies in this debate. We do not take a sympathetic view, when, for example, the three partners come to a clear consensus on policies on railway safety, safety in the air and the combating of marine pollution, and then along comes the Council and reduces the funds for these to nothing. When that happens, we are no longer talking in terms of technical decisions about finance, but about policy decisions on the Budget. I think the indications from the Transport Committee have been very clear, namely that we have to make the funds available at least for our shared policy objectives, particularly when it is the environment and safety that are at stake. We are familiar with the problems of transport, which affect us internationally, nationally, and also locally. The public expect more than just crisis management; they expect signs, and a sustainable policy in these fields. Secondly – and I regard this as having been very important – we also give priority to the trans-European networks. We must not forget that there are now 25 of us, rather than 15. We were realistic in our estimates of the expenditure authorisations, bearing in mind the current situation and the Commission’s depiction of it. Although we know that there is no point in providing money in excess of the projects currently being tackled, we also want to send a message to the effect that we aspire to planning, in future, a trans-European network including the 25 countries and more besides, and the new countries, who are represented in this House, expect the same priorities to be set. Mobility and transport fall between the economy, safety and the environment and affect all the citizens who want to live together in Europe. For that reason I would like to see good financial provision made for these well-known priorities."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph