President. The next item is the report by Mr Mario Mauro, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and energy and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 [COM(2004)0475 C6-0086/2004 2004/0154(COD)] (A6-0283/2005).

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 14 July 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and energy for 2007-2013. Mr Mauro, your rapporteur, put in a great deal of effort on this text and I am grateful to him for that.

As long ago as 2001, the Commission’s White Paper on the common transport policy sounded alarm bells regarding delays in the completion of the trans-European network (TEN). At the current rate of investment, it would take a further 20 years to complete the whole TEN, as revised in 2004. Let us be clear on this. No economy can be competitive without effective transport and energy networks. The establishment and smooth running of these networks represent essential prerequisites for the success of the internal market, for guaranteed sustainable mobility and for the security of energy supply in the enlarged Union.

Five years on from the Lisbon objectives, it is clear that the network continues to face strong, but uneven, traffic growth, which reinforces the need for sustainable development, and the need to integrate the transport and energy networks of the new Member States has become a pressing priority.

We must not underplay the role that Europe should play in developing these networks. The added value of our support can be seen in terms of the stability of financing over time, which many national budgets, subject to the vagaries of the economic climate, are incapable of offering. Most importantly, we can produce a leverage effect, whereby we encourage Member States to invest in projects with significant European added value, such as cross-border projects, and to work more closely together.

Our proposal to you for the new programming period is to allocate EUR 20.69 billion to the trans-European transport and energy networks, which will break down as EUR 20.35 billion for transport and EUR 340 million for the energy sector.

I should like to thank Parliament for lending its backing to the figure of EUR 20 billion that we proposed in the context of the financial perspective. That figure is crucial, and a bare minimum in light of what is at stake and what needs to be done. The financial requirements of the 30 priority projects identified by Parliament and the Council in 2004 alone account for EUR 225 billion, the lion’s share of which – some EUR 140 billion – falls in the period 2007 to 2013.

The funding applications that the Commission has received since 2001 demonstrate that the existing mature projects could absorb the currently available budget four times over. With regard to the energy field, the proposed budget increase is aimed, primarily, at addressing the needs of the ten new Member States. According to our estimates, the EUR 340 million that we are seeking amounts to just 1.7% of the cost of the priority projects. These projects are geared directly towards increasing our security of supply, at a time when we are becoming increasingly dependent on external suppliers, not least for natural gas.

All of this leads to the conclusion that the Commission’s initial proposal must be maintained. I am counting on Parliament not to cut the trans-European Energy network’s budget from EUR 340 million, as the report proposes, to a lower amount than was made available for 2000-2006.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, beyond simple budgetary considerations, there are four additional objectives in the proposal before us this evening.

The first objective: simplification, to ensure more effective decision-making.

The second objective: conditionality, whereby the granting of aid will be conditional upon compliance with the principles of the common transport and energy policy. The Commission is proposing that precedence be given to the most environmentally friendly means of transport, such as rail transport, in particular freight, and that emphasis be placed on safety and security. Financing will also be dependent on whether the continuity and interoperability of the network can be guaranteed.

The third objective: in order to increase the leverage effect of Community funding for transport, the entire budget will be focused on just two groups of projects representing the cornerstones of the trans-European network. The first such group is the priority projects, among which special attention will be paid to those projects which contribute to the integration of the internal market in an enlarged Community, such as cross-border sections, and those which make a major contribution towards reducing imbalances between methods of transport. The second group is the other projects of common interest, such as projects which help to enhance the quality of services provided on the network, improve safety and security for users and promote interoperability.

In the energy field, finally, funding will be focused mainly on the priority projects identified in the guidelines decision.

I should like to stress the point that, in the field of transport, the Commission is proposing higher maximum rates of aid. For some sections of the priority transport projects, the new regulation proposes to raise the maximum cofinancing rate to 30%, and for cross-border sections that maximum rate may rise to 50% in exceptional cases.

In the energy sector there is no change. Support for studies could reach 50% of eligible costs, whereas the rate applicable to construction is normally limited to 10% of eligible costs. In exceptional cases, such as priority projects, this figure could rise to 20%. In return for this higher rate of Community aid, the Member States must naturally provide solid guarantees on the basis of a financial plan and firm commitments as to the completion dates for the project.

I should also like to point out that the Commission is proposing the introduction of a new kind of aid, namely the creation of a guarantee instrument covering the specific risks inherent in TEN projects in the first years of operation post-construction. The purpose of this new instrument is to provide leverage for the financing of TEN projects by the private sector.

The proposal on which Mr Mauro worked was an ambitious project aimed at improving the trans-European network. This is a key factor in fulfilling the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, and we must ensure that we have the means at our disposal to achieve this. Mr Mauro has taken this aspect on board and I am grateful to him for that. I should just like to add one comment. I have learnt, Mr President, that in the context of the 2006 budgetary procedure your Committee on Budgets did not adopt the amendment tabled by the Committee on Transport and Tourism aimed at increasing the TEN-T budgetary line from EUR 120 million using the margin of heading 3. An appropriation of this nature for 2006 would have facilitated a smoother transition to the new financial perspective period.

That being said, it is my fervent wish, Mr President, that Parliament will adopt Mr Mauro’s conclusions. I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that, if we are really to derive maximum benefit from the single European market, then these trans-European networks, these great corridors running from North to South and from East to West, will play a vital role. They will facilitate freight movement and will provide the public with the opportunities for mobility and the scope for trade that they wish for.

This, Mr President, is why I feel that this proposal for a regulation is highly significant and why I shall be listening with interest to the various comments from the Members of Parliament who wish to speak on the matter.

  Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Commissioner Barrot has already pointed out, trans-European networks are without doubt a decisive factor for achieving the aims set out in the Lisbon Agenda for economic development and employment in the European Union.

In that sense it is quite true that, unless agreement is reached on the financial perspective, we are most unlikely to see the trans-European networks implemented, because planning done on a year-to-year basis would clearly jeopardise the future of these great projects, which instead require longer-term planning. Besides, even though this sector has been identified as crucial for completing the internal market and enhancing social cohesion, it has its difficulties, especially financial ones, which are preventing the individual projects from being fully implemented. The fact is that to date only 20% of the objectives to be achieved by 2010 have been completed.

The huge resources needed and the time frames involved have both prevented the use of financial instruments also involving private capital and made national governments unwilling to commit themselves to projects of cross-border importance.

Another difficulty is the fact that the ten new Member States have inadequate infrastructures and an almost total lack of cross-border networks. I therefore agree with the Commission – and Mr Barrot has explained it very well – about adopting measures such as the European coordinator, so as to encourage institutional cooperation at all levels.

I also welcome the new proposal for a regulation drawn up by the Commission, which not only sets out the new financial framework but also specifies the four criteria already mentioned for disbursing aid. Thus I agree with simplification, conditionality, the principle of selectivity and concentration, and the principle of proportionality, which the Commissioner has already mentioned. The Commission proposal contains another innovative element that I endorse, concerning the use of new forms of financial support: in addition to direct grants, it proposes interest rate rebates on loans given by the European Investment Bank (EIB), loan guarantees to cover risks after the construction phase, and participation in risk capital funds.

In the light of the debate within the Committee on Budgets and the amendments that have been tabled, and in view of the difficulties associated with the huge resources needed to implement the individual projects, I feel that it is appropriate to facilitate the procedures for using private capital. I shall therefore be inclined to reject those amendments that propose placing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of carrying out the projects.

I must also point out that, as a list of priority projects already exists, I consider it superfluous to accept those amendments that propose a sort of prioritising of priorities, since the Van Miert high-level group has now drawn up a list of priority projects. I also believe that financial support is guaranteed for cross-border routes and that the Member States have agreed to implement and complete them. In this respect I shall accept Amendment 46 by Mr Costa, the chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, although I must point out that the text in Italian has not been translated correctly. For me, therefore, the English text will be authentic and I also propose a split vote on the word ‘binding’.

I shall be inclined, however, to reject the amendments referring to assessments made by independent bodies and independent experts, because there are bodies that have that function in every Member State and it would be a waste of resources to insist on others.

Lastly, with regard to the energy sector, I do not think we can talk about financial support just for project studies, because more often than not they are left to gather dust and, in my view, are another waste of resources. Thus I believe that the development of the European energy market should be supported through infrastructure funding as well, since the energy problem is one of the factors that limits economic growth in the European Union. I thank the Commission for its excellent cooperation and above all I thank my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets, who have facilitated and also improved our joint work.

  Ingeborg Gräßle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the public, the trans-European transport and energy networks are Europe at its most tangible. We all need infrastructure, and therefore we can all experience the European added value in this field.

The report by Mr Mauro treads remarkable new paths in some areas. For the first time, the European Parliament is officially given a basis in the comitology procedure and is involved along with the Council in drawing up the priority list. That is welcome and desirable. The selection of projects is important to us, project monitoring equally so; that is why the comitology procedure is so significant and important.

Incidentally, such involvement falls within the normal duties of national parliaments. This means that a little normality is coming to Parliament’s work. For this reason, we think it important that such things are also implemented. Democracy is not something one can pick and choose, but rather a fundamental procedure. I would appeal to Commissioner Barrot to give us a helping hand here and make these things possible.

We regard the energy sector with some sadness. We are aware that currently only 1.7% of the priority list is cofinanced, and this proportion will fall still further. In the long run, we have to ask ourselves fundamental questions here. Our rapporteur has given the Commission several hard nuts to crack. Multiple financing from EU coffers, which is still forbidden under the Financial Regulation, should no longer be prohibited.

The recovery of transport funds in the event of irregularities or failure to complete the project within 10 years is an innovative request, and we expect the Commission to enable its implementation, because this is important to us.

  Herbert Bösch, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, first of all, on behalf of my group, I should like to offer my thanks and sincere congratulations to Mr Mauro for his report. He has the broad support of our group.

Until 1 May 2004, the trans-European transport network of the 15 EU Member States consisted of 75 200 kilometres of roads and 78 000 kilometres of railways. After 1 May 2004, this was extended by 14 500 kilometres of roads and 16 000 kilometres of railways. The Commission’s initiative to reassess and increase the resources for the period 2007–2013 is therefore more than welcome.

To review what has happened to the old 14 priority networks from a somewhat critical perspective, too, it must be said that this is disappointing. Not a great deal has happened in this regard. At the same time, on the basis of this dispassionate analysis, we can also declare our support for the undertaking of the Heads of State or Government that is the Lisbon Strategy. The report by Mr Böge on the financial perspective subscribes to this in full. In contrast to many of the Heads of State or Government, we are declaring our support for what was agreed in Lisbon. We shall support the Commissioner on this path.

We have also learnt from past experience that sometimes all it takes is a certain critical mass of cofinancing from Brussels to kick-start one trans-European network or another. We believe that the Commission’s views could signify this financial critical mass. For this reason, we shall gladly support the Mauro report when it comes to the vote.

  Sepp Kusstatscher, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I take a rather more critical view. It is to be hoped that the political authorities start to realise that so much traffic is indefensible for reasons of energy consumption, climate change, adverse health effects and environmental degradation. A drastic change in transport policy is needed.

Failure to do so will result in the following scenario, which I venture to predict using the example of the Brenner Base Tunnel. A colossal building site will surround the area for at least 15 years. There is no point in the tunnel unless there are routes feeding into it, but the construction of those is a very long way off. The existing railway line will continue to deteriorate, particularly on the Italian side. An underground line is being built for high-speed passenger trains on the assertion that the intention is to take action against road freight transport. Construction will be much more expensive than is now being maintained. As is the case with the Messina Bridge, the taxpayer will bear all the risks. The burden on human beings and nature along the Brenner line will continue to increase in spite of the Brenner Base Tunnel. A couple of people will become richer, though. The Brussels coffers have whetted their appetite.

  Jacky Henin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, talking is all very well, but action is better. Oil prices, combating pollution, road safety, working conditions for drivers, the deterioration of infrastructures due to lorries: these are all reasons why the development of rail freight must be treated as an absolute priority, but please allow me to be concerned and impatient because, where we should be acting firmly and quickly, at the moment the European Union is being weak and feeble! It must be noted that the trans-European rail infrastructure projects are progressing at a snail’s pace.

Furthermore, I am alarmed by Mr Barrot’s participation, on 12 July, in a meeting of the lobby of road transport employers, within the context of a review of the White Paper on transport, neglecting rail in favour of roads. Mr Barrot should have stated that he would be more vigilant with regard to the need for rail investment.

There is therefore only one question on the agenda: is there really the will to promote a determined policy of developing rail freight in Europe? That is the only question that matters.

  Sylwester Chruszcz, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, I should like to point out that when planning for new routes, new destinations and new means of transport we should also look to the future. I refer to the matter of which future routes and means of transport we need to plan for, and the costs we will incur as a result.

I should like to point out that there are many TEN routes in Europe whose full potential is not recognised. In my opinion, this includes the shortest transport link between Scandinavia and southern Europe, which runs from Sweden through my own country, Poland, via Szczecin, Wrocław, Bratislava and Vienna. There is a lot of potential for developing new transport in Europe, and we should start thinking now about our future areas of investment.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the granting of financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks is urgently needed, and the approach it takes is very much on the right lines. None of the solutions put forward in either the proposal or the Mauro report could be called controversial. At the same time, however, it is hard to view the regulation in isolation from the list of priority projects included with the proposed measures.

I should like to take this opportunity to focus on one such project, which forms part of the planned establishment of a common energy market in the EU. I refer to the proposal for a Baltic gas pipeline. When deciding on how to back this project, the European Union chose the more expensive option, since the agreements previously concluded with Russia provided for a cheaper solution, namely a second leg for the Yamal pipeline. It follows that the option chosen had been put forward at a later date. As Commissioner Barrot has said, the European Union gave preference to a solution that provides added value and ensures security of supply to certain EU Member States. At the same time, however, this solution disrupts and actually threatens the security of supply to other Member States, namely the new Member States such as Poland and the Baltic States. Furthermore, the project has certain negative political implications.

This type of debate inevitably leads to a scaling down of political relations between the latter Member States and Russia, and to the deterioration of such relations.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (NI).  – (PL) Mr President, the construction of trans-European transport and energy networks is of enormous significance for the EU, and in particular for the 10 new Member States. Extending such networks will reinforce the cohesion of regions and countries, as well as boosting business cooperation and development and the consolidation of the single market.

Current needs far exceed the financial resources available, particularly in the new Member States. One of the key challenges we face is therefore to ensure that these resources are spent sensibly. Whether we succeed in doing so will depend to a large extent on the rapid development of plans for extending the networks over the next 30 years. Timely decisions on planned network routes would reduce unnecessary costs incurred as a result of land acquisitions. Local authorities would be able to block investment activities that would interfere with such routes, and to make provision for future projects in their development plans. I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work on the report.

  Stanisław Jałowiecki (PPE-DE).  – (PL) Mr President, this would appear to be a popular theme among the Polish Members of the House, and I shall continue the trend. The Commission’s new principles governing the granting of financial aid for the trans-European transport networks are a prime example of price dumping. They are intended to encourage the Member States to take measures that are in the interests of the European Community as a whole.

Put briefly, these interests boil down to two key issues. The first of these is the need to eliminate transport bottlenecks in the old Member States. The second is the need to link the transport systems of the 15 old Member States to those of the 10 new Member States. There is cause for concern, however, that one of these goals will take precedence over the other if the above principles are implemented. By this I mean that there is a better chance of the first goal being achieved than the second. It goes without saying that the reason for this is that the new Member States, in particular those such as Poland, are facing lengthy delays in the development of road infrastructure. As well as finding solutions to the problem of how to link their transport systems to those in Western Europe, these countries are confronted with the challenge of constructing the very systems themselves. One answer could be to allow double Community funding for priority routes. The Commission proposal makes no provision for this possibility, however, since the new principles exclude funding for sections of routes covered by the Cohesion Fund. This could mean that the dumping I mentioned at the start is entirely ineffective. Amendment 22 should be adopted in order to ensure that such funding is not excluded, and I am very much in favour of this amendment.

Of course, the effectiveness of the new financial instrument in the old Member States will also be limited if cuts to the total funding available are made in the budget, and indeed this issue has already been touched upon several times today. Such cuts would be absolutely disastrous, and would render a valuable initiative by the Commission completely meaningless.

  Gilles Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Mauro, as well as Mr Bösch, who has been of great assistance to us in this work. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and I would like to say that this regulation is long awaited. It contains many innovations for better managing the funds that are going to be invested in the trans-European transport networks, such as multi-annual programming, which is necessary and which is attached to each project, automatic decommitment, so that the funds do not remain unused indefinitely, the increase in rates of intervention, the establishment of European coordinators or the new loan guarantee instrument.

This is therefore a regulation of very high quality, but it contains a significant mistake: we have considerably increased the rates of intervention, we have considerably extended the geographical scope of the trans-European networks, we have doubled the number of priority projects, and we do not yet have any budget! In other words, though we now have the key to the coffers, the coffers are empty. I believe that we must avoid the loss of credibility that we suffered in relation to the big Essen projects. I therefore believe that it is extremely important that we pursue the budgetary battle to its end, because otherwise we will suffer a very considerable loss of credibility, which would be a very great disappointment for all of the regions of Europe.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the spending adjustment variable is what are being called projects of common interest, which are not priority projects. In this regard as well, I fear that many regions and many local authorities in Europe are deluding themselves. The regulation is deceptive: it says that it funds everything, not just priority projects, but also projects of common interest within countries. We are very well aware, though, that we do not have the resources for that and that we will focus solely on cross-border projects and the big priority projects. I therefore believe, Commissioner, that it needs to be put differently. In the absence of the resources to cover everything, we must explain that we will intervene wherever there is Community added value, that is to say, essentially the great cross-border projects.

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are today discussing criteria for infrastructure projects for energy and transport, and we need to do so, too, as the story of promises of new infrastructures without accompanying measures is a story of frustrated hopes. That is why I attach particular importance to these framework conditions, which are necessary as, without them, there would be no point in even the most expensive of projects.

I therefore attach particular importance to making cofinancing conditional on the realisation of the common signalling system, the performance of cost-benefit analyses, and compliance with and regard for EU environmental legislation. Here I am also thinking of the Messina Bridge: I find it hard to understand why this project should be given parity of treatment with cross-border projects.

I should like to mention an idea for the future: why not, in future, induce countries in need of EU funding for new infrastructures to levy tolls for the management and maintenance of these infrastructures? Failure to do so will give rise to an imbalance and distortion of competition.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). –

(The speaker spoke Irish)

Mr President, I should like to welcome the proposal from the Commission. Financial aid in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks is important for maximising the benefits of cross-border cooperation in particular, and infrastructural integration. The European Community can contribute to this process by encouraging cooperation, promoting models of best practice and providing financial assistance. That will have practical benefits for my constituency in terms of networks across the island of Ireland and beyond, as I am sure will be the case for many other constituencies.

I personally have concerns, however, when such instruments are used for the further privatisation of public services. That is something that I could not support.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party. I thank Mr Mauro and Mr Barrot for the excellent work that has been done and for the important content of the proposal.

At a time when Europe is divided on many fronts, I find it indeed essential to send out a message expressing our willingness to take specific action on the need for cohesion within our borders. I therefore fully agree with the content of the report: the TEN projects bring people closer together, reduce distances and inequalities, and eliminate borders. Thus they deserve our utmost commitment. I am therefore in favour of increasing our contribution to cross-border projects, which bring Europe closer to the local dimension and connect the public sphere with the private.

I should like to have seen greater European Union support for energy networks: together with transport, they form the foundations of a European economy that can compete at world level. I hope, therefore, that the new rules will soon be approved and, above all, I hope there will be a swift solution to the problem of the financial perspective for the period in question. In that respect I appeal particularly to the UK and Austrian Presidencies, and I hope that President-in-Office Blair can give us something new and positive tomorrow to revitalise the debate.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, the report by Mr Mauro which has just been debated is a high-quality report. I would like once again to thank Mr Mauro, as well as the members of the Committee on Budgets, of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for supporting the Commission’s proposal.

Your reactions today demonstrate how close to your hearts this subject is. This is entirely logical, since in the enlarged Europe – and I have been particularly interested to listen to those of you who have spoken on behalf of the new Member States – the trans-European networks are one of the key elements in terms of European integration, the internal market and the Lisbon Strategy.

There is a broad consensus between our two institutions on the objectives to be achieved. I would like the final decisions that will be taken with regard to the new financial perspective to take full account of this priority and to avoid disappointment, as Mr Savary in particular has said, quite rightly pointing out that it was undoubtedly rather risky to present a proposal before having the financial perspective. But I would respond to Mr Savary, and to all of you, by saying that it is Parliament and the Commission that I believe must do everything possible to ensure that the financial perspective is sufficient to meet the needs of this Europe, which many of you have described very well.

A word now on the budgetary envelope. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the proposal sets a global envelope of EUR 20.69 billion in commitment appropriations for the period 2007-2013, of which EUR 20.35 billion is intended for the ‘transport’ section and 340 million for the ‘energy’ section. The Commission is delighted that you fully support this approach to transport.

I would note however that it has been proposed, within the context of the work of the temporary committee on the new financial perspective and the resolution adopted by your Parliament, to reduce the budget proposed for the Energy-TENs (cf. Amendment 34). I should point out that this sum would be below the current 155 million covering the period 2000-2006, even though the Union now has 10 more Members. If Parliament were to confirm this, it would be difficult for the Energy-TENs to have an impact on the development of the energy networks at a time when the world energy situation requires that we strengthen gas and electricity infrastructures, which contribute directly to the security of our energy supply. Furthermore, the sum requested is justified by the need to support, in certain well-justified cases, investments made beyond the study phase. I would repeat, therefore, that the Commission wishes to maintain the sum proposed.

I would like to return to the possibility that you propose of funding projects crossing natural barriers at a rate of 50%. These are Amendments 19 and 20. The Commission’s proposal proposes that this type of project may be subject to funding at a rate of 30% of the total cost of the project, while the exceptional maximum rate of 50% – and I mean exceptional – should be reserved for the cross-border sections of priority projects. Indeed, experience has shown us that the Member States concentrate their financial resources on the sections of priority projects located in their own national territory, while, in the case of cross-border sections, there are generally significant delays. By increasing the rate of Community funding for this type of section, the Commission wishes to apply a lever effect in order to promote the implementation of these projects. That is why the Commission is not in a position to accept your amendment aimed at extending this maximum rate reserved for cross-border sections to natural barriers.

Let us make this clear: the budget of EUR 20.3 billion, which the Commission has proposed for the Transport-TENs, will not allow us to use the 50% everywhere. We will only be able to help certain cross-border projects in this way, since it is truly in the Community interest to carry out these projects. If we accept the concept of a natural barrier, that could also involve sections of projects within Member States, for example when as a result of a geographical constraint, a mountain, a river or the sea, a structure needs to be built. It is true that this increases costs, but I very much regret to say that we do not have sufficient resources to implement this provision, if it is voted for. I understand this since I myself am from a mountainous country, but I truly believe that we should reserve the maximum rate for the cross-border sections of priority projects.

My third comment relates in particular to Amendment 22 and the principle of the non-accumulation of Community aid. If we were to remove this principle of non-accumulation of Community aid, we would be acting contrary to the financial regulation applicable to the general budget. But of course that does not mean that the different sections of a particular project could not be financed via the different Community financial instruments and that the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund could not be used for each of these sections!

You also want the multi-annual indicative programme to be subject to approval by the Council and the European Parliament. The definition of the multi-annual indicative programme is an implementing measure, in that the European Parliament and the Council, in the guidelines on the trans-European transport and energy networks, have already established the priorities. The allocation of financial resources by means of the multi-annual programme must be based on technical assessments of the state of progress of the projects, amongst the priorities set by Parliament and the Council.

With regard to environmental considerations, I would confirm the Commission’s commitment fully to respect the existing requirements, while avoiding introducing into the regulation the whole list of provisions appearing in the legislative texts. It is very clear that the trans-European networks must provide a model in environmental terms.

I was amazed just now, Mr President: Mr Henin – he has left, fortunately perhaps! – was entirely mistaken, since the meeting I was invited to specifically gave me the opportunity to explain that transporting everything by road creates major problems in terms of the environment and mobility in Europe in the future. At that meeting, therefore, contrary to what Mr Henin said, I defended the interests of rail freight and I would point out that, in the trans-European networks, most of the corridors are intended for railways. I would also like to say in this regard that we obviously very much want to be in a position to encourage the implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System, the ERTMS, since it is by means of this system that we shall guarantee interoperability for the whole of the European rail system.

I do not want to say any more at this hour, Mr President. I would repeat that this proposal is an ambitious one in terms of supporting the trans-European networks. It is a key element in terms of European integration, the internal market and the Lisbon Strategy. In my view, it is essential that Parliament support this proposal. I would state very clearly that the time has come to send a strong message to the Council, Mr President. The excellent report by Mr Mauro will undoubtedly contribute to a successful codecision procedure.

Some of you have just mentioned the failings of the Essen programme. I believe that today we have presented a number of provisions, in very close cooperation with your Committee on Transport and Tourism, so that, quite rightly, these priority projects may truly be accomplished with the guarantee of respecting a certain number of deadlines. All of this clearly depends to a very large extent on the financial perspective, but what we can say this evening is that if, thanks to Parliament and thanks to the Commission, the financial perspective is sufficient to cover Europe’s needs, Mr President, we will then be in a position to create these trans-European networks effectively, which will undoubtedly be a determining factor for the single market and for mobility in Europe. I would like to thank you once again and I would like to thank Parliament for the attention and interest you have applied to this project, for which Mr Mauro has been an excellent rapporteur.

With regard to the other amendments, Mr President, I shall communicate our detailed position to you if you like. I have commented on some of the main amendments, but we shall submit this list to you in order not to delay the closure of this debate.⁽¹⁾

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Annex – Position of the Commission

Mauro report (A6-0283/2005)

The Commission can accept the following amendments: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27, 28 and 31.

The Commission can accept the following amendments in principle: 7, 25, 36, 38 and 45.

The Commission can accept the following amendments in part: 13, 35, 37, 41 and 46.

The Commission cannot accept the following amendments: 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48.