Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-386"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.28.3-386"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to convey my heartfelt thanks to the Vice-President of the Commission for ‘NAIADES’, the Action Programme for inland waterway transport. Parliament is your ally, because inland waterway transport must be given a prominent place on the European agenda. Our report has received unanimous support from the Committee on Transport and Tourism and I should like to extend warm thanks to my fellow MEPs, the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the staff for their efforts.
Mr Vice-President, although Parliament backs your goals, we do think that more ambition is called for if they are to be capable of being achieved. In the report, Parliament underlines, above all, the importance of reliable inland waterways. This is, after all, the key to their success and to their expansion. Reliable inland waterway transport hinges on sound infrastructure and transhipment facilities, and the current maintenance backlog of the inland waterways infrastructure in Europe is one of the most urgent problems to be resolved. In this respect, the new Member States, with their specific problems, must receive special attention. Prime responsibility lies, of course, with national or regional authorities, which give too little priority in this area.
This House also wants to see more funding within the framework of the TENs, especially where priority projects are concerned, and we are still waiting for the appointment of a TEN coordinator. Could you promise that you will come up with a proposal shortly? Parliament would also like greater priority and a higher preferential rate of 20% for all inland waterway projects of common interest, which will make it possible to back many small infrastructure projects, for the bulk of the funds have, so far, in fact been diverted to rail and road, which has to change if we take the NAIADES Programme seriously.
River information services projects must also be considered for a contribution from the multi-annual programme. This is something Parliament will be voting in favour of tomorrow, and is also what the Finnish Presidency has proposed in the Council. If you can give it your backing therefore, things are bound to fall into place.
Parliament is also ambitious where the environment is concerned. We hope that the Commission will present regulations for cleaner fuel as quickly as possible. Last Friday, we received additional information from your offices, for which we are indebted. Clearly, much research has been done, also into the technical and economic impact. The results appear promising, and that is why I should like to ask you to table a sound proposal when the directive is reviewed. It is important not to lose track of the prospect that IWT will be just as clean as road transport. This is also something the sector itself is in favour of. I have read in the paper that the sector believes it could achieve more via the Central Consultancy Register, since the Commission is said not to want to rush things. I hope you will be able to put my mind at rest about this.
Much has been said about the innovation fund, which, in my view, is a wonderful instrument to flesh out this fine Action Programme. The sector has good ideas of its own, and EUR 40 million have been set aside in Brussels. This House is of the opinion that the Commission and Council should also show commitment and should match the same amount, so that EUR 120 million would become available. The Council has produced little in the way of concrete commitment, but would you be in a position to convince them? Even more importantly, would you be prepared to make these EUR 40 million available over the next few years? I consider this to be a test case to demonstrate whether you really want to implement the Action Programme.
The Action Programme contains various other points we are very happy to endorse: a funding manual, guidelines for state support and the announced screening of existing legislation, which is desperately needed in order to trim down the administrative burden. I should, in this connection, like to draw your attention to problematic environmental legislation.
It is not for no reason that I have left the institutional issue to last, something for which I have set out a clear course in my report. We must focus on cooperation, take into consideration the current competences of all participating parties and capitalise on the expertise of international organisations. A battle over powers will only have a delaying effect. We must start implementing the Action Programme as a matter of urgency.
Finally, the Commission will also need to show a real commitment to action. By rolling up their sleeves, the Commission will prove that it is really taking inland waterways to heart and only then will the time be right to consider, if necessary – and I am not convinced of this yet – the institutional relations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples