deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, I wish to begin by apologising for Mr Bradbourn's absence from this debate. Due to health reasons he cannot join us and, therefore, I am reading, on his behalf, the speech he prepared earlier. I know he is extremely proud of being the rapporteur for the Marco Polo Programme and is looking forward to its passing through Parliament later this week. As he reiterated in committee earlier this month, he felt that the three institutions were not far from agreement, and a close inspection of the common position proves this. Indeed, from Parliament's perspective, the two outstanding points that he felt needed to be discussed were resolved in the informal trialogue. Due to the success of the informal trialogue he felt that there was no need for a new, lengthy debate on the programme, which passed unopposed through the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism at its last meeting. As Mr Bradbourn has reiterated on many occasions during the formulation of this programme, it must strike a balance, and he firmly believes this common position would do just that. To bury business in yet more red tape would, in his eyes, be completely the wrong approach, notwithstanding the need for efficient scrutiny of how the money is spent and how effective the programme is proving to be. The common position will mean that the programme remains market-driven, thus providing an excellent opportunity to show that the European Union is prepared to help not hinder business, as is often the case. As I am sure you are all aware, the threshold issue is something Mr Bradbourn has been fighting for vehemently, not just on behalf of the numerous small and medium-sized businesses in his own region of the West Midlands of England, but for SMEs in general, which, if it were not for these low thresholds would miss out entirely on funding which is there to help them achieve the goals of the programme. As rapporteur, his view was that by lowering the thresholds companies could work together in putting forward innovative projects that would benefit transport and, indeed, industry as a whole. By keeping the original thresholds, small businesses would have once again been ignored by Europe which, it would seem, is merely interested in showcase schemes which, while looking good, do not benefit the people who paid for them – us or the taxpayers. The immediate aims of the Marco Polo Programme are improving the environmental performance of the freight transport system and also reducing road congestion in albeit a relatively small way. Your rapporteur justifiably believes that this lowering of thresholds is extremely important in obtaining these goals. His last point merely reinforces one of the main aims of this whole proposal: to reduce bottlenecks. He agreed originally with the Commission that congestion threatens both the environment and the operational working of the whole freight transport sector. He still feels it imperative that we concentrate on practical ways to defuse these bottlenecks, especially at ports. Regarding the implementation of this programme, the last thing Mr Bradbourn wants is to unnecessarily hold up the legislative process. As you will all agree, this programme is not only another piece of legislation; it is a significant signal to Europe's freight businesses that we can, and indeed we want, to help rather than hinder them. The sooner the Marco Polo Programme becomes active, the better for Europe's transport sector. Thus, given the outcome of this common position and its unopposed endorsement from members of the Committee on Transport, the rapporteur, Mr Bradbourn, believes we can progress towards the second reading of the Marco Polo Programme without the need for wholesale change. As a final remark, he would, however, reiterate the necessity of our open approach: the carrot rather than the stick, designed to encourage both the participation of, and leadership by, the business community. I apologise again for Mr Bradbourn's unavoidable absence.

Political group: PPE-DE