Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-30-Speech-4-032"

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	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020530.3.4-032"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-30-Speech-4-0332
lpv:speaker	lp:Luigi Cocilovo2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Partito popolare italiano (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (2002-04-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, in my opinion, it is not surprising to see Parliament devoting such care and attention to the Commission's proposals in this report, given the role played by Trans-European networks generally in growth, competitiveness and employment policy. We welcome the harmony this first revision establishes with the White Paper guidelines, in an attempt to achieve vital consistency with strategic objectives and intervention priorities. In this respect, as has been pointed out by the rapporteur, we would stress the appropriateness of an intervention that targets bottlenecks, that gives priority to actions that can deliver intermodal transport and restore balance between the different modes of transport. Road transport must not be penalised as long as no credible alternatives exist, but transport by rail and water must certainly be given a boost and we endorse action to this end. We are, of course, concerned that the list of projects does not enjoy adequate financial backing. When there is such a big discrepancy between the number of projects and funding, there is a risk that some projects will, in practice, be plundered to the benefit of others. This is why, along with our desire to see the north-south axis priority maintained, we would warn against repercussions such as the necessary intervention on the west-east axis north of the Alps on the Stuttgart-Vienna axis becoming an alternative to the Lyons-Trieste axis south of the Alps. I would conclude with a more general observation: we all eagerly await the 2004 review. This is why some of us have chosen not to have the list of Annex III interventions brought before Parliament, despite the fact that we do not endorse a method that has excluded Parliament. Next time we should have a proper preparatory inquiry that enhances the role of Parliament, which cannot run the risk of being downgraded to suit market demands, and unilateral management by the Commission and the Council is no guarantee of quality when selecting interventions."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"inter alia"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph