Strasbourg, 11/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday in Strasbourg the debate on Trans-European transport network was sparked off with a question from Paolo Costa (ALDE, Italy), president of the transport committee. Once again MEPs expressed their frustration ten years after the European Council had decided in December 1994 in Essen to launch these major infrastructure projects. The president of the Council Nicolas Schmit sought to provide assurances but admitted that there had been delays in getting the transport networks up and running and considered that funding proposed by the Commission for the 2007-13 financial perspectives 'EUR 20.3 bn) ought to suffice for guaranteeing sufficient Community co-funding for the thirty projects taken in the 2004 decision. However, Schmit pointed out that the Council group in charge of this issue had only discussed the proposal once and delegations from Member States first wanted conclusion of negotiations on financial perspectives. The Luxembourg minister for European affairs was keen to give a word of warning on the new financial perspectives, exclaiming that this involved a crucial issue and Member States above all and MEPs too should play their part. Mr Schmit pointed out that the Luxembourg presidency “attaches very great significance to preventing this financial perspectives chapter from being diminished”.
Mr Costa warned that if they wanted to avoid significant points of frustration they had to prove that they could make progress in this area, which is both strategic for European competitiveness, transport network sustainability, genuine European integration and “putting value on identities of the different European countries”. Doubtful as to the means planned on being sufficient, Costa asked whether it would be preferable to focus on Community co-funding out of the 48 cross border network sections.
Transport European Commissioner Jacques Barrot pointed out to MEPs that lost time caused traffic congestion in Europe that was equivalent to 1% of GDP and that an impact study in 2003n demonstrated that Trans-European networks could generate additional GDP of 0.25% and the creation of a million permanent highly qualified jobs. Barrot provided assurances that cross border projects would continue to take priority in the allocation of funding. He pointed out that they had a practical and complete schema, with rates of co funding that were the same in all Member States and which, for the “normal” projects, could be extended according to the Commission's proposal of 10%-30% if they are priority and from 20%-50% if they are cross border. Barrot said that he expected much from the coordinators for the Trans-European networks, also mentioned the “neighbourhood policy” dimension of this dossier and that he had given the former European Commissioner for Transport Loyola de Palacio some time to study the subject.
German Social Democrat Willy Piecy, former rapporteur on Trans-European transport networks said that from the “Christophersen Group” at the beginning to the current “Van Miert Group” it had been said that “everything is ready for construction, that the cranes will be arriving” but what was happening in concrete? German Green Michael Cramer said that the projects that they had presented were nothing but “a catalogue of national selfishness”. He asked whether the Messina Straits bridge would bring something to European competitiveness. Cramer wanted focus on two railway projects linking the capital cities of the eight new Member States of Central and Eastern Europe: the Berlin/Warsaw/Vilnius/Riga/Tallinn line; the Vienna/Venice/Ljubljana/Bratislava/Prague/Budapest line. Polish MEP Stanislaw Jalowiecki (EPP-ED) thanked him for this solidarity.