Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.11.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission wishes to begin by thanking you for this interesting debate and thanking Parliament for the fact that you attach such great importance to the question of the interoperability of the conventional rail transport systems. I want to highlight the excellent contribution which has been made by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, especially by MEP Mr Savary who has prepared the report.
Amendment 39, Article 18(3) and Amendment 40, Annex VII. The proposed measures are incompatible with Article 14(2) which specifies that it is the Member States’ responsibility to make sure that the system complies with the STI, or
regulations. This proposal could be introduced into the framework directive concerning railway safety which the Commission will be introducing later this year. Clearly, however, exceptional instances of transportation or, for example, locomotives involved in track maintenance do not need to fulfil the same requirements as passenger trains. The proposal therefore mentions a number of special cases (cf. Article 2 K and Article 5(5)) where special, suitably adjusted regulations may be applied.
Allow me to leave the other amendments, because they all have our support. They help make the directive clearer, especially the special cases. Otherwise, they involve acceptable supplementary provisions, for example certain cases exempted from the technical specifications.
I would conclude my intervention concerning the interoperability of the conventional rail systems by thanking Parliament for its efforts. We must hope that it will be possible to adopt the directive as early as at first reading. The directive will take on a key role when it comes to revitalising railway transport.
I now move on to the second report, which concerns the interoperability of high-speed trains. In this case, too, Mr Savary has prepared an interesting report containing a number of constructive observations and proposals. The Commission will examine them in detail and, as far as possible, take account of them in planning its activities.
The Commission’s report was more concerned with the implementation and effects of Directive 96/48 than with the actual progress made towards the interoperability of high-speed trains. This has to do with the fact that the railway network in question is still at an early stage of development. Parliament’s proposal for carrying out an assessment of how much progress really has been made on interoperability is therefore very interesting.
Where the conventional railway network is concerned, the Commission proposed that a common representative body should provide, and regularly update, a facility to help monitor progress. At the request of a Member State or of the Commission, this would provide a picture of the trans-European rail system for conventional trains.
The Commission has examined all the proposals in the report on the interoperability of high-speed trains, and they constitute a welcome contribution to the Commission’s ongoing deliberations in this area which continues, of course, to be given high priority.
It is generally known that the railway sector is of crucial importance in terms of Europe’s future transport needs and a more sustainable European transport system. Increased interoperability is a key factor in our endeavours in this area. It is very pleasing to have it confirmed through today’s discussion that the European Parliament and the Commission see the issue in much the same way.
The directive must be seen, in the first place, as a technical measure, but the proposal is, of course, also of political significance in so far as it helps implement a common and open market for railway services and railway materials. As is well known, the Commission has made the railways sector into one of its priority areas for taking action. This was especially made clear in the 1996 white paper on the revitalisation of the Community’s railways.
As early as the end of last year, the EU took a large step towards revitalising railway transport when it introduced the so-called railway package. I am convinced that this can contribute to a renaissance for goods transport in the Community. Above and beyond these measures, further efforts are required if the strategy is to be complete. By this, I mean primarily measures which integrate the national networks and increase the quality of the public services.
We all know how different the various countries’ technical standards and operating regulations are. This has also emerged clearly in the course of the debate. This makes international transport both more expensive and more complicated than domestic transport. These differences affect not only interoperability but also the internal market for railway equipment.
The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has adopted an amendment to the report and, in that way, backed our own proposal. Most of the amendments to the report are acceptable. A series of amendments entail actual added value, something for which we wish to thank Parliament. As you know, the Council too has examined the proposal and, thanks to contacts between Parliament’s rapporteur, the Presidency of the Council and the Commission’s officials, it is entirely possible that the proposal may be adopted as early as at first reading. A prerequisite for its becoming a reality is the desire to pursue a genuine convergence policy even where an essentially technical document is concerned.
When it comes to the amendments, I only wish therefore to deal with those which are unacceptable. First of all, Amendment 9, Article 1(3). The area of applicability is established in Annex I and cannot be limited in the way proposed. Those cases which are mentioned may be dealt with as special categories, as special cases or, at worst, as exceptions.
Amendment 28, Article 22(3). The proposed change is incompatible with the idea that the technical qualifications for interoperability are to be introduced gradually. Nor does it fall in with the need to prioritise those measures which provide the greatest benefits in terms of cost.
Amendment 29, Article 24(1). Where this is concerned, there are legal obstacles to acceptance.
Amendment 32, Annex I, together with Amendment 35 on exempting passenger carriages from third countries. The proposed wording is unacceptable because it means a fundamental change to the rolling stock referred to in the directive. The principle which the Commission upheld before the Council and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and upon which the proposal is based is that the directive must embrace all rolling stock used on the trans-European railway network. This is important for the purpose of promoting the internal market for rolling stock and also for the purpose of guaranteeing a minimum level of safety the length of the trans-European railway network. In order to achieve this minimum level of safety, all rolling stock must fulfil certain minimum specifications."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"spécification technique interopérationnelle"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples