Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.12.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the rapporteur who drafted a report on the development of the Community’s railways has adopted the guiding principle that for the time being, the railway industry has largely lost the competitive battle to road transport and aviation but that despite this, it is preferable to hold on to the railway industry and strengthen it. I could not agree more.
But this is about the only issue on which I see eye to eye with him. I believe Mr Jarzembowski is quite mistaken. What he wants to achieve requires a complete change of tack and what he proposes will lead to further regression. His proposals are in line with views held at the end of the twentieth century.
In all areas, we are witnessing a neo-liberal attack on public services, Community undertakings and employers’ organisations. This attack is mainly aimed at postal services, rail and the energy sector, companies which have the potential to demonstrate that we can organise our economy in a more democratic, environmentally-friendly and less profit-oriented manner. Unfortunately, these companies have for years been neglected by their owners, the democratically elected community which belongs to us all, and have been treated as private companies.
The rapporteur considers the rail industry as an irritating state monopoly with difficult and demanding trade unions in tow. He wants to break this monopoly as quickly and radically as possible. Instead of focusing his attention on stepping up cooperation between the existing railway companies and enhancing the democratic say over these companies, so that benefits of the rail industry can be better enjoyed on a European scale and liabilities can be eliminated more effectively, he puts all his hope in competition and liberalisation. In his opinion, the form of organisation by means of which road transport and aviation have largely triumphed over rail, should also be applied to rail itself.
We have now gained some experience in liberalisation thanks to the English and Dutch models. The English variant carved up the national railway industry into regional companies, some of which ended up in the hands of large foreign concerns. In other regions, they remained a monopoly. That country now invests less in innovation than any other country. Trains are shorter and overloaded, and the safety of railways has declined.
According to the Dutch version, competitors can obtain licences for lines on which they want to compete with the existing railway company. This company was established in 1939 and is an amalgamation of old private railway companies which operated inefficiently. Following a propaganda war between a newcomer and the existing company, operating different rates and using different trains, this newcomer was first taken over by a large French water company and subsequently ceased all activity. It is evident that it is only profitable to operate lines over which you have complete control. This reality renders the proposals made by Jarzembowski unviable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples