Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.2.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, Mr Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would like to thank the European Parliament for raising this question today because it allows me to draw attention once again, Minister, to the fact that trans-European transport networks are the key to the Lisbon strategy and to growth in Europe.
Turning to the third question which Mr Costa rightly stressed, I would like to confirm that the 48 cross-border sections of the 30 priority projects to which you refer are and will continue to be considered priorities in the allocation of funds, provided that those cross-border sections satisfy the preparation and maturity criteria I have just mentioned. For potentially eligible cross-border sections, please note this is not a general scale, but some cross-border sections could be eligible for as much as 50% if the Commission’s proposal is accepted.
To be eligible for such a rate, projects will have to satisfy the following criteria: first, they will have to require action, construction works, on both sides of the border between two Member States. Secondly, the project will have to be technically and financially indivisible. Lastly, the Member States concerned will have to be committed to the project jointly and set up a common structure. I am personally very much in favour of giving such priority to cross-border sections. I can assure Mr Costa that we do have the list of these projects, these 48 sections.
I am now drawing to a conclusion, Mr President, honourable Members. I know you are already convinced of the necessity of the European Union having an effective and efficient trans-European transport network. Did you not adopt the 30 priority projects here in this House in April 2004? Clearly, Minister, the future financial perspectives for 2007–2013 will have to allow those perspectives that Parliament has so wisely described to be translated into reality. I want to be clear on this question. Either this House and the Council of Ministers will grant the necessary budget for the 30 priority projects and we will then, I am sure – and I will do my level best to see that it happens – succeed in putting these 30 priority projects in place. Or – and I do not believe this will happen – your decision will remain a dead letter and then it will only be possible to cofinance a relatively modest part of those projects
Changing the subject, I see, Mr President, that I must take this opportunity to thank the Luxembourg Presidency because we have completed the first stage in establishing the Eurovignette. I would like to draw attention to all that the Luxembourg Presidency has done to achieve that.
I would also like to point out that, together with my fellow-Commissioner Mr Almunia, we have created this guarantee tool, which, as you said just now, will make it possible to use public-private partnerships in just a few cases. To be honest, however, without these EUR 20 000 300 000 it will be extremely difficult for us to rise to this challenge. I therefore thank Parliament once again for raising this important question today. Even if it anticipates the major debates on the financial perspectives, it is sometimes good, honourable Members, to remember that there are a number of imperatives we cannot avoid. When you believe deeply in the success of Europe, in the success of this territorial cohesion we all want, in the success, too, of a more competitive Europe, quite honestly I believe we must give the necessary priority to our trans-European networks, as Parliament has wisely described them, which in all honesty I believe are essential if Europe is to succeed in the years ahead.
As you yourself said, Mr Schmit, territorial cohesion is vital for the enlarged Europe. You also referred to the Lisbon strategy’s goal of competitiveness. I am among those who believe that mobility is now an integral part of competitiveness.
Before answering the questions raised by Mr Costa, the Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would also like to mention a few figures confirming the importance of these networks. The time lost in congestion in Europe has been put at 1% of gross domestic product or more than EUR 100 billion; that is almost as much as the European Union budget. The Commission’s 2003 impact assessment concluded that construction of the large trans-European network projects could generate extra economic growth of around 0.25% of GDP, that is one million permanent highly skilled jobs.
Mr Costa referred to the delays in carrying out the Essen projects. The main reason for this has been the inadequacy of Community aid. That aid has not in fact always been enough to persuade investors to mobilise and to coordinate their efforts, especially for transnational links. It is quite clear that these projects will not come about without an EU financial effort, which will take the form of this reasonable and much thought-over increase in the Community budget for trans-European networks.
If I may, I would like briefly to discuss three questions. The first concerns the van Miert Group’s estimate for all 30 priority projects at EUR 225 billion for the period from 2003 to 2020. Following a survey of the Member States, the Commission has established the finance needed for each project up until 2020. Adding those requirements together gives an investment profile showing that, for the period 2007-2013, the need for funding will peak half way through the new period of financial perspectives. This profile suggests that the investment needs will be of the order of EUR 140 billion for the period 2007-2013 and that there will be a considerable increase between 2007, with EUR 17 billion, and 2010, with EUR 25 billion, especially as large projects, like the Brenner and Mont Cenis Alpine crossings, which will absorb very large amounts of money, take off.
The EUR 20 000 300 000 budget proposed by the Commission is a minimum. In fact, if I confine myself to the sections of priority projects that are ready for starting today, I can tell this House, Mr President, that the entire average annual budget proposed by the Commission for 2007–2013 would already be taken up. The requests for funding that the Commission received from the Member States in 2003 and 2004 are already enough for spending three or four times the present budget. I am saying this to the Luxembourg Presidency because we really must have these figures clearly in our minds in order to understand that this money will be used immediately, in the best of conditions.
In addition to these priority projects, we will have to cofinance the rest of the network, in particular such technology projects as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) or the Sesame air traffic control initiative.
All this shows quite clearly, honourable Members, how important it is to maintain at least the proposed EUR 20 000 300 000 budget. This money really can be used as soon as the European Union has access to it. That is my first answer.
I will now answer the second question. The budget breakdown will, first of all, be based on an indicative multiannual programme for 2007–2013, which will set out the amounts allocated to each project in each period. Obviously, these allocations will depend on the actual progress made with the projects. This programme should be settled in the course of 2006. Secondly, part of the budget will be distributed on the basis of annual calls for proposals. Projects will be selected on the basis of how well the project has been prepared for, the soundness of the financial package and the consequences for the environment. The Commission will be particularly keen to obtain firm commitments from the Member States in order to ensure that the priority projects go as planned. That is my answer to the second question."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples