Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-261"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Review of the trans-European networks and sustainable development2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030924.7.3-261"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-24-Speech-3-2622
lpv:speaker	lp:Monica Frassoni2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 co-chair; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Ecolo (Belgium) (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, we would like to thank Mr Antonione for being with us today, but what we wanted when we requested this debate was to talk to Mr Lunardi and Commissioner De Palacio: however, we have to note that neither of them is in the Chamber today, and we do not believe that this is a coincidence – rather, a clear political gesture. The Presidency’s speech focused more on the functioning of the internal market than on the achievement of sustainability goals, and the same applies to the Members’ speeches: they all talked about transport; no one mentioned sustainability. People say that the review of the TENs will contribute to the development of a network which is efficient in terms of quality and sustainability, but that does not necessarily follow and it requires specific political choices to be made. There is no mention of incorporating environmental concerns into the current debate on the review of the TENs and there is no sign of any intention to carry out a pre-emptive environmental assessment. Here is a practical example. Today, we are faced with the danger that the Commission will bring forward to 1 October the approval of what is known as the ‘Van Miert list’, which sets out the TEN priority plan for the next 20 years. As it admitted itself, the Van Miert Group should have carried out an assessment of the projects’ impact on the environment, biodiversity, volumes, transport and climate, but it has not done so. Who should shoulder this responsibility, if not the Commission? If the Commission really is going to take its decisions by 1 October, it will not have time to do so; it will merely have time to ratify the Van Miert list, which boils down to nothing more than the product of bartering between different governments. We feel that, before the Van Miert list is approved, a proper cost-benefit assessment needs to be carried out on the trans-European networks proposed at Essen; we need to promote a European transport plan which prioritises the restoration of existing lines, reinforcement of regional networks and the fight to achieve decongestion of urban traffic; we need to consult the local bodies and authorities in the spirit of the Aarhus Convention and expose the interests of the economic promoters who are behind major infrastructure. There is a lot more that needs to be said, but I hope that we will have other opportunities to say it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph