Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.5.3-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, allow me to say first and foremost that I am particularly pleased with Mr Fatuzzo’s explanation of vote, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Anyway, now on to more serious matters.
The fifth proposal is that the Commission should accord greater importance to the forthcoming revision of the TEN guidelines in order to improve access from Europe’s island and remote regions to the central regions. I trust you will forgive my sensitivity in this matter, given that I come from both an island and a remote region.
Another proposal in my report is that there should be close cooperation between the Commission, Germany, Austria and Italy on the Brenner base-level tunnel, a Community project of the utmost importance which, of course, comes within the scope of trans-European networks.
We also feel that the principle of efficiency should be highlighted by encouraging alternative solutions rather than new investment and by promoting new technologies and intelligent transport systems, such as telematics for road users and new signalling for the rail networks
Finally, we would like to ask the Commission to include in its future annual reports more information on funding by Member States on the periphery
and the private sector. Since it is the responsibility of the Member States and the regions to provide such information, we also call upon them, Member States and regions alike, to provide the Commission with the necessary data.
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, the resolution of the 1994 Essen European Council on trans-European networks, together with the joint European Parliament and Council decision of 23 July 1996 laying down Community guidelines for trans-European networks, was, at the time, – and I want to stress this – considered to be one of the most important steps towards real European integration.
Building modern motorways and high-speed rail networks which would traverse more Member States at extremely high speeds and without hindrance, and building modern international airports and ports which would facilitate the free movement of persons, goods and services between various Member States and third countries, was rightly considered to be both a fundamental complement to, and a necessary requirement for, the smooth and successful operation of the internal market, which had just then come into force. Indeed, there can be no internal market without an extensive system of trans-European networks.
Today, however, some five years on from the start of this process, it has become clear in practice that meeting this ambitious goal is beset by numerous problems, the first and most important problem being, of course, sufficient funding. As I have stated in my report, what is particularly disconcerting is the fact that seven out of a total of fourteen Essen specific projects have still not secured adequate funding, nor has a definitive timetable been drawn up for their implementation. We all know of course that financing from Community funds clearly falls short of what is actually needed and is never enough to complete the projects. However, this is not its main aim. Direct Community grants for projects only account for a fraction, and a small fraction at that, of Community funding. The main aim of Community funding is to finance feasibility and technical studies, as well as interest subsidies and loan guarantees. In other words, its role is to support and complement measures taken by Members States, which are primarily responsible for financing and constructing trans-European networks, not purely to complete projects.
On the other hand, however, the concerns and difficulties of Member States’ governments are understandable, particularly if one considers the public spending cuts to which all the Member States were more or less forced to take recourse during the nineties in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and qualify for EMU. Nonetheless, the problem still remains. And we must admit that, without funding, there can be no trans-European networks. That is perhaps why the main proposal of my report centres on the fact that financial resources earmarked for building trans-European networks must be increased. The Commission and, more importantly, the Member States, must address this problem.
Our second proposal is to strengthen cooperation between the public and private sector in building trans-European networks, because we feel that, if it provides funds, the public sector will be able to implement more projects, i.e. it will be able to mobilise private sector finance. I would like to stress how important a role the European Investment Bank plays in this regard, too.
The third proposal is that the proportion of funds earmarked in the Community budget for TEN studies should be reduced from 47% to 30%, so that there is money left over for grants for building the networks and for loans.
The fourth proposal is that measures and incentives should be taken for the seven problematic networks and, above all, a timetable should be drawn up for their completion. We therefore call upon the Commission to work with the competent Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples