Mr President, could I begin by saying that the difficulties which face us in the consideration of this report represent some of the most important challenges to the completion of the internal market. Ever since the publication of the TENs progress report at the Cardiff Council meeting of 1998, there has been concern that some Member States have not succeeded in bringing forward projects which are appropriate for the type of funding contained. Therefore, as rapporteur, I have endeavoured to undertake a balanced approach to the revision of the TENs guidelines across the transport modes which facilitate our collective goal of a common market. So that we can develop a network which best fits the needs of business and the consumer, I feel it is necessary to offer a breadth of choice that will encourage competition, both within a particular sector and across all modes. I am particularly happy to see the increased importance given to regional airports in this report, which will not only provide valuable flexibility in the air travel market, but also significantly reduce congestion around our principal capital airports, along with the concomitant problems which that causes to the economy and the environment. Similarly, I am also pleased to see, in areas where such action is appropriate, there is a greater emphasis on short sea, intra-European and inland waterway shipping. However, it is necessary that in our efforts to promote a variety of transport modes, we do not lose sight of the different economic and social needs of Member States. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Different countries have different conditions to deal with demographically, geographically and economically and I must confess to being opposed to some parts of the report as passed in committee, which seem to favour unduly certain modes at the expense of others. If a particular form of transport proves to be the most effective option for their particular requirements, European citizens should not be deprived of their natural choice by actions which have little relevance to their specific circumstances. For example, in my own constituency of the West Midlands in the United Kingdom, which forms the core of my country's logistics, distribution and haulage network, we are fortunate enough to have two TENs projects running through the region: the West Coast mainline railway and the M6 motorway which links together large parts of the British motorway system. It seems to me, by way of example, to be ridiculous to have the direct competition of these two transport modes compromised when this offers genuine choice to the consumer. The concept of genuine multi-modality proposed by the Commission should be encouraged, to include such projects as road and rail links to airports, but in a form which does not distort the market. Also, I have concerns that rail transport alone will not be financially or economically feasible in some areas of the Union. Thus, I fear that too prescriptive legislation will needlessly discriminate against some Member States. I feel that the plenary amendments which I have submitted amount to a restoration of fair competition and flexibility which will allow Member States to use the available funding for the most appropriate form of transport to meet their particular circumstances. I believe that EU funding should be restricted to a series of technologically and economically feasible projects from across all modes of transport, which will represent a truly level playing field. Sadly, one of the characteristics which does seem to be common in these projects is the tendency for them to drag on without recourse to reassessment if Member States do not provide the wherewithal to implement them. The regional policy transport and tourism committee has already accepted an amendment to limit the period for any project to no more than 15 years and I would commend this to the House. I cannot emphasise enough that in order to secure the long-term viability of the transeuropean networks, it is imperative that we first ensure the sound management and financial probity of suitable projects. Similarly, I have not been able to support amendments tabled to add further projects to Annex 3 in the light of past experience which, in a sense, has resulted in an auction of promises. It is illogical to spread funding even more thinly when projects are already not keeping to the targets originally agreed. For this same reason, I am proud to say that I have been uncompromising in my position with regard to the financial scrutiny that I feel Parliament has a duty to perform. For example, with regard to the Galileo system, the definitive cost of which has only been approximated, I propose that a regular cost-benefit analysis be undertaken and that Parliament be informed of progress of the project on a regular basis. To conclude, I reiterate my belief that a balanced approach to transport across the EU is what is needed, not one aimed at current fashion. This is a very long-term, highly costly programme and Europe's peoples will not thank us if we go down the path of denying them the choice and freedom of transport that they rightly expect. I hope the House will feel able to support this report.

Political group: PPE-DE