Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for her opening comments on the general aims of the Commission's proposals. I have several important points to make on my report concerning the Marco Polo Programme. Firstly, this programme must strike a proper balance. It would be extremely counterproductive to bury business in yet more red tape, notwithstanding the need for efficient scrutiny of how money is spent and how effective the programme is proving to be. Secondly, in my view as rapporteur, it is essential that the programme remains market-driven. This provides an excellent opportunity to show that the EU is prepared to help, not hinder, business, as is so often the accusation. I especially welcome the committee's decision to lower the thresholds involved. This is something I have been adamant in fighting for, not just on behalf of numerous small and medium-sized enterprises in my own region, but also 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. Thanks to the new proposed new thresholds, companies could work together or alone in putting forward innovative projects that will benefit the industry as a whole. Keeping the original thresholds would mean that small businesses had once again been ignored by the European Union, which would seem to be merely interested – from the Commission's own comments – in showcase schemes. This, whilst looking good, does not benefit the people who pay for them – the taxpayers. In order to advance the immediate aims of the Marco Polo Programme – those of improving the environmental performance of freight transport and reducing road congestion, albeit in a relatively small way – this lowering of subsidy thresholds is crucial. I also view as a welcome addition to this report, and one that well accompanies the reduction in these thresholds, the simplified definitions. This may not sound much to those of us who have been working on the report since March, but to the already overburdened managers of companies in the freight transport system all over Europe it would prove a great help in making applications for assistance for projects much easier. Indeed, these definitions could well prove to be the difference between companies not fully understanding the system – and hence not bothering to apply – and SMEs having much greater confidence in approaching the Commission with bids for their own innovative projects. My last point reiterates one of the main aims of this proposal: that of reducing bottlenecks. I agree with the Commission that congestion threatens both the environment and the operational working of the whole freight transport sector. It is therefore imperative that we concentrate, in practical ways, on how to defuse these bottlenecks, especially around sea ports. With regard to some of my earlier points, I feel that the lowering of the thresholds and the simplified definitions also apply here. It would be wrong to infer that only large-scale projects can reduce bottlenecks. I believe that innovative projects, on a smaller scale, can have just as much practical use – indeed if not more so – than those costing many millions of euros. Thus, given the final outcome of the report in committee, I reiterate the necessity of our open approach – the carrot rather than the stick – designed to encourage the participation of the business community. Success will very much depend on enterprises coming forward with their ideas, not those thrust upon them by regulation. I would commend the report to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE