Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-30-Speech-4-027"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Trans-European transport network2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020530.3.4-027"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-30-Speech-4-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Dirk Sterckx2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; ELDR (1999-09-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vlaamse liberalen en democraten (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"In his sterling report, the rapporteur once again underlines the importance of TENs. It is therefore beyond me why the European Parliament should not be a party to deciding on this list of priority projects. Parliament demanded this at the time of the initial decision in 1996; it now has this opportunity and it is not seizing it. The Commission backed Parliament in 1996, and we are now about to turn down this opportunity, as is happening in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Mr President, this is beyond me. This is also unacceptable, in my view. This is why my group, with the support of a number of members of other groups, has re-submitted the projects that were turned down in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism – both my projects and those of other fellow MEPs, who have had to withdraw their reports on account of some pressure or other. This is, in my opinion, not sensible and not acceptable. These are reports that originate from different countries, including Italy, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium. It is therefore nothing to do with national thinking only. It is my belief that Parliament must take part in the discussions on this list. I should like to spotlight one project which is of extreme importance to me, as someone from Flanders and Antwerp: the Iron Rhine, the railway connection between the port of Antwerp and the Ruhr area, a railway line which already exists and which therefore does not need to be constructed, and which only needs modernising and re-commissioning. The rapporteur states in his report that connections between ports and their hinterland, between water and rail, are important. The Iron Rhine is one such case. In its White Paper, the Commission states that we should promote the railways, that we should start re-using abandoned infrastructure and using lines that are specifically intended for goods transport by rail, and that we should tackle the difficulties at border crossings, as these constitute the pressure points. The Iron Rhine project meets all these conditions, that are listed in the report and in the Commission’s White Paper. It is a project that is relatively cheap from a budgetary point of view, because the railway lines are already in place. It is a project that adds enormous value, because it can also provide some relief for the East-West line and can therefore combat congestion. I would therefore find it incomprehensible if the European Parliament were not to take part in this discussion and if it were not to table this, and other, projects. I am not saying that we should have the last word, but we have to engage in the discussion."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph