Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.12.2-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, rail transport is very important in terms of citizens’ mobility, the development of trade within Europe and in terms of the environment and regional planning.
The European Parliament has already paved the way for the liberalisation of international freight transport at its first reading, by granting authorised applicants track access rights. This rail package was the subject of a Council compromise in December.
The Council suggests that the choice of authorised applicants should be left to Member States’ discretion, that the freight rail networks be opened up using a specific network called the “Trans-European Rail Freight Network” and, lastly, that the division into separate entities only take place progressively.
I note, without any satisfaction, that the Council’s position also takes account of the various national situations and grants each State the right to determine their own choices and for example, to pursue cooperation commitments. However, we are faced with an ultraliberal proposition at this second reading. The amendments tabled sanction the overall fragmentation of the rail system, which would mark the end of subsidiarity for the authorised applicants in 5 years’ time and mean that the separation of entities would not be achieved progressively. It would also mean the complete opening up of international and national freight transport and, by 2010, of passenger transport.
Just a few moments ago we were speaking about electricity and on Thursday we shall address the issue of the single European sky. Throughout the public sector the same refrain is heard: liberalise, it’s magic! In my view, rail transport would be left with an enormous bill. Rail companies would be forced into the role of service provider, which would create unfair competition. While the service providers benefit from the largest part of the commercial margin and are free to choose the most profitable sectors, the rail companies on the other hand are left to bear the high equipment and personnel costs.
In opposition to the argument advanced regarding the increase in traffic, this system might cause the isolation and disastrous creaming off of the more profitable sectors. This same dogma is aimed solely at gaining profits through liberalisation, and users and employees do not get a say. No proper preliminary study was undertaken and what is more, I think that we should take time to study the impact of the decisions taken by the Council. It would also be useful to compare – in relation to the freight paths – the private and the public sector.
If the proposals from this second reading are adopted, they would be considered as a real provocation by all involved in the sector. I can neither endorse them, nor the amendments tabled by the Socialist Group that suggest a need for further opening up on the path to liberalisation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples