Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.5.3-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, it would have been nice if the President-in-Office of the Council could still be here to hear us discuss this but, never mind, we are used to this sort of thing.
I would like to start, Madam Vice-President, by reiterating that you have taken a very great deal of trouble in submitting a very well thought-out proposal. Setting up the van Miert Group was a very good idea, and the Commission proposal is influenced by what it produced and you revised. For that, many thanks; especial thanks, too, to my colleague Mr Bradbourn, whose report is the result of very careful work. As it stands, the report is not entirely what he would have liked to see, as a fortuitous majority in the Committee pushed through very substantial amendments to Annex III, but perhaps we can sort that out tomorrow.
There are just three major points that I want to discuss. My group is in agreement with the list of priority projects being extended to 30. I now hear that the Council has suddenly decided that it no longer wants the 30th. It has to decide, then, what it actually wants. Although we are prepared to extend the list by adding, for example, the project for a fixed link across the Fehmarnbelt, we want a more precise definition of the projects in some areas covered by Annex III. This is the subject of a number of amendments, and I hope that the Council will accept them.
My group is, at present, prepared to keep the list to 30 projects, as we know that, according to Article 156(2), decisions on trans-European networks cannot be taken in opposition to the Member States, so it makes no sense to make major additions to the list in the short time available. This means that we are taking the same line as Commissioner de Palacio, and I hope that the other groups will do likewise.
Madam Vice-President, we very much welcome the idea of motorways of the sea; I see the advancement of short-distance transport by sea, especially ferries, as very important. As a mode of transport, it saves a great deal of energy, is highly environmentally friendly, and will tend to take the load off road and rail corridors. However, Madam Vice-President, we are behind the rapporteur. Motorways of the sea must not be used as an excuse to inject state funds in the form of subsidies, with the state even buying ships in order to compete with private enterprise. That goes against the whole idea of trans-European networks, the object of which was always to improve infrastructure so that business can use it. Using them to extend it is not acceptable.
I think we will sort things out with the Council in a sensible way, but there is very little time in which to reach an agreement. If, by Monday evening, the Council has not precisely defined what its interests are, and thereby enabled us to agree on the details, nothing will happen by 1 May; the fact is that Parliament will not simply abandon the good positions incorporated into the Bradbourn report simply because the Council is obstinately sticking to its own. Codecision is at issue here. Both sides have to give way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples