Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.8.1-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as the rapporteur pointed out, the White Paper on European transport policy highlighted the considerable delays encountered in developing the trans-European transport networks, particularly for some of the more ambitious projects of the decade and more specifically with regard to the Alpine rail links, for example, the Brenner link or the Lyon-Turin route.
There are other amendments that the Commission is able to accept in part, but in part only. These include Amendment No 3, the wording of which is confusing as the development phase of energy projects can already, under the current regime, benefit from funding of up to 50%; Amendment No 7, the second and third paragraphs of which we cannot accept, as they are being confused with the Structural Fund. This Fund is made up of multi-annual programmes, which is not the case for the budget of the trans-European networks, decisions on which are taken on an annual basis, thus the same comments also apply to Amendment No 12 which I mentioned earlier. Mr Turchi, you must not confuse trans-European networks with the regional development fund.
I have three comments to make regarding Amendment No 8. First of all, the Commission agrees to include projects to promote safety in the criteria eligible for the 20% rate in Article 5(3). However, the Commission does not agree to the reference to road and waterway intermodality. This definition is much too vague and it risks opening up possibilities of providing increased financial support, particularly for road projects, which are not Community priorities, contrary to the desire expressed in this debate also by Mr Bradbourn.
Lastly, I would draw your attention to the fact that the Commission proposal only relates to two sectors, transport and energy. As far as telecommunications is concerned, given the fundamental differences between the two sectors that I have just mentioned, the Commission is unable to accept the proposal to extend this increased level of funding to telecommunications at the current time.
I shall now turn to Amendment No 10. The Commission wholeheartedly supports the proposal to transform the trans-European financial committee into a consultative committee. However, we do not wish to keep the amendment which seeks to propose the presence, without voting rights, of a European Investment Bank representative and of representatives from the candidate countries as observers, as this would run counter to the process of decision-making by comitology to which we must all adhere.
As far as Amendment No 13 is concerned, as with Amendment No 8, the Commission is able to accept the part which seeks to promote safety, but not the rest of the amendment. Lastly, out of the 15 amendments, all those that I have not mentioned, namely Amendments Nos 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11, the Commission is able to accept all these, with, where necessary, some changes to their wording, since they seek to strengthen the scope of our proposal and, in particular, I would like to stress that we share Parliament’s concern with regard to the need, within the framework of the next financial perspectives, to obtain a budget that will fulfil the very high ambitions that we have all set for trans-European transport and energy networks.
These projects, which fully meet the priorities of sustainable development, are some of the most complex, both from a technical point of view and in terms of their financing. Furthermore, as you have said, considerable delays were also experienced in improving or building infrastructures between the Union and candidate countries.
In the area of energy, the recent communication on energy infrastructures identified many missing links in electrical interconnections between Member States and the Barcelona European Council set a very ambitious target for cross-border interconnection capacity of at least 10% of the Union’s production capacity to be achieved by 2005.
To support all these projects, which everyone agrees are necessary, the existing financial regulation for trans-European network enables us to co-finance competitive studies up to 50% and competitive work up to 10%. Under no circumstances can we exceed the latter ceiling. If we assess how the regulation has been applied, it is clear that the level of 50% for studies provide a real incentive whereas the limit of 10% is not sufficient to launch projects and attract private investors where this is possible.
In light of this, and in line with the White Paper on transport policy problems, and in response to requests made by the Gothenburg European Council with regard to increased financial support for rail projects, the proposal to revise the financial regulation that is before you today seeks to raise the maximum ceiling of Community financial support for trans-European networks to 20% for cross-border rail projects that cross natural barriers or for projects to eliminate bottlenecks in the rail network, as has already been possible with the current regulation for satellite radio-navigation projects such as Galileo.
This support of up to 20% will be applied to both cross-border infrastructures with the candidate countries in order to cope with the predicted increase of traffic between these countries and those of the Union. An additional EUR 100 million will also be granted to these projects, which include all types of transport, aiming, first and foremost, to improve the safety on the main transport routes and also to eliminate bottlenecks on these routes.
In the area of energy, the increased level of support will apply to 12 priority projects that the Commission identified in its recent communication on the energy infrastructures and whose financial profitability is not yet guaranteed.
Our aim is very clear therefore: to allow Community financial support to fulfil its role as a catalyst, including in the project development phase, and to make investments in cross-border transport and energy infrastructures more attractive to private funding.
Turning to the amendments and the report itself, the Commission would first of all like to thank Mr Turchi, as the report on which he worked upholds, even strengthen the scope of several aspects of our proposal. Of the amendments which were proposed, in other words, 15 amendments, the Commission must however reject Amendment No 2, as it affects our right of initiative; Amendment No 12, as this arises from a misinterpretation, and I will come back to this; Amendment No 14 which establishes restrictions that fall outside the scope of the regulation, and Amendment No 15, which considerably alters the nature of the Commission’s proposal since it removes the chapter on energy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples