Documents considered by the Committee on 10 June 2009 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


Annex: United Kingdom Government Response to the European Commission TEN-T Green Paper Review: Summary of Views

"The UK welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the EC Commission's consultation on the Trans-European Network Green Paper — TEN-T review.

"The UK considers that the EU added value of the TEN-T programme in its current form is uneven — and generally lacking in the existing comprehensive network.

"Taking into account the urgent need to stimulate economic growth as well as the need to address the climate change challenges the United Kingdom calls for a fundamental review of the TEN-T programme and recommends that:

  • The objectives of the TEN-T programme need to be clarified and more focused on both scope and outcome; any TEN-T funding from the EU budget must be better focused on priority projects, and combined with EIB loan and private finance as a general rule;
  • The existing TEN-T maps would need to be reviewed. No further "priority corridors" should be set up without a compelling case for EU value-added;
  • Fundamentally, TEN-T needs to be better focused on projects that provide genuine EU value added and value for money; Only those transport corridors and transport components (such as major ports or airports) that are of strategic interest to a number of Member States, should be part of the TEN-T network;
  • In order to obtain a true network effect, the network needs to be fully integrated and multimodal and promote sustainable modes of transport; The peripheral needs of the Community should also be taken into account;
  • The review should also address sound financial management, project scoping and TEN-T management which have been inadequate in many cases; For instance, the UK would wish to see a clear definition on what defines the TEN-T network as complete.

"The UK has recently set out its latest strategic thinking in the Delivering a Sustainable Transport Strategy report.[47] Similar considerations have been conducted at regional level, for instance, in Northern Ireland the Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan[48] outlines the key transport network and alongside the Regional Transportation Strategy[49] sets out the long-term transportation strategy for the Region.

"We shall stand ready to work closely with the EC Commission and Member States on the future definition and scope of the TEN-T policy and programme."

"Which of these options is the most suitable?

"From a principled perspective the UK view is that:

—  Option 1, the current structure, has proven to have limited EU value added and looks like an unsustainable model for the future.

—  Option 2, priority projects connected into a priority network would be our preferred option as it offers simplicity, clarity and a more focused output approach. The true network effect assumed in the Green Paper under option 3 would be more clearly achieved here since the integration into wider priority network would allow for a more comprehensive view of the TEN-T network.

—  Option 3 would be our second preferred option provided that the definition of the "conceptual pillar" is clear. Special attention would need to be paid to the delivery under this option; the ambiguity and complexity of the so-called double layer approach could limit its European added value."


47   http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/pdfsustaintranssystem.pdf.  Back

48   http://www.drdni.gov.uk/rts_main_doc-2.pdf Back

49   http://www.drdni.gov.uk/rstn_tp-2.pdf Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 19 June 2009