Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-518"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090422.62.3-518"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
This evening, we are discussing the changes to the Marco Polo II programme. I am indebted to the European Commission for coming up with proposals to lower the thresholds for this fund, and I am pleased that Mr Stockmann has embraced these proposals with the necessary dynamism. The extra reduction in the threshold for inland shipping, in particular, can count on my support.
There is a problem, though. This reduction is not enough. In the Committee on Transport and Tourism, Mrs Wortmann-Kool and I successfully remedied this mistake. I regret, though, that Mr Stockmann deems our amendment – number 24 – undesirable. I know him, after all, as a staunch supporter of inland shipping and I had hoped that such amendments would have been agreeable to him. After all, the threshold proposed by the Commission is still far too high for the small entrepreneur, which the canal shipping trader is, almost by definition. I cannot understand why the other institutions should wish to pick holes in Amendment 24.
We have a well-stocked fund for sustainable transport. Inland shipping is the cleanest modality by far. Why should we not lower the threshold more for this sector? The European Commission is, in my view, scared that such proposals will prompt a few Member States in the Council to demand reductions in other areas. I should like to ask the European Commission to stand firm and explicitly recognise in this House the importance of inland shipping as the cleanest mode of transport."@en1
|
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples