Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.1.2-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that most of us in Parliament agree that we need a European approach and that national monopolies have no future. It is, however, clear that in a European market such as this, where more players are entering the arena, there must be proper safety arrangements. The safety situation is satisfactory at the moment. Rail is a safe means of transport, it must remain at least as good and we must try to improve safety levels wherever possible.
As Mr Jarzembowski and the Commissioner have also said, we need a dynamic rail industry. When you see how the transport economy has developed, you cannot do without railway companies. I get terror-stricken whenever I hear people from railway companies saying that if we do not adapt quickly we will have no more goods traffic on the railways, and we will be priced out of the market – not by the prices themselves but by bad working practices. Rail is a sustainable means of transport and we must look after it. With our reports and your proposals, Commissioner, I think that we are taking a significant step forward, for we need to progress towards a European transport market.
The directive we are now producing is an initial step towards European safety policy. At the moment there are still too many different rules and regulations which make this railway market in Europe too complex in many cases. We must therefore develop a standard procedure for the different Member States in this directive.
Firstly, a structure. Who is responsible for what? The railway companies are naturally responsible for what they do, and as a Parliament we are adding the infrastructure managers to this. Every Member State should therefore have a safety body which operates independently and openly and is transparent. Everyone must know how things stand. With regard to the operational side of things, however, I think that the safety bodies must be able to make use of the existing railway companies’ know-how, knowledge and experience.
Secondly, we must have a common approach to safety, a common safety goal. As a Parliament, we think that, once established, this goal must be put before the Council and Parliament again and must not only be assessed by a committee of national experts. We must not only have a common goal but also a common working method, and I am somewhat stricter than you are when it comes to discouraging new national rules. We will have to be as strict as possible in this regard, and the Commission must have the last word.
We must also – and I am somewhat more ambitious than the Commission in this regard too – establish a European objective, and we must state that our objective is to achieve one single set of European regulations. We do not necessarily have to achieve this tomorrow, but we must at least be able to say what we are aiming for. All players must have a management system, and there must be common safety certificates for staff, for rolling stock and also for the infrastructure manager. As far as staff are concerned, I think that a European driving licence for train drivers is important. We must work on this. Communication is also important; that is something I have added to my report. If you cross language boundaries you must also make sure that you solve language problems. The agency must have its say about how this is to be done. It is an important point, however.
Thirdly, we must develop a common method of investigating accidents, investigating incidents, an independent investigative body and criteria that must be respected in these investigations.
I think that we have achieved a balance between making our approach as European as possible with supervisors who are as independent as possible, and achieving a theoretical model that is also workable in practice. So you must not simply dismiss the knowledge that the old monopolies have at their disposal; you must use it to create a workable system. I am convinced that where we are now is an initial phase, that this is an initial step. We will have to discuss safety a few times more and amend and adapt directives over the next 10, 15 and 20 years. The structure we are now setting up will also have to prove its soundness in practice, and we must ensure that we are flexible enough to acknowledge our mistakes and to do something about them if necessary.
I also think that we have achieved a good balance when it comes to the involvement of the staff concerned. It is important for the people who work on the railways to be involved in the things that concern them. Safety is also the work of man, and the people who are responsible for this work must be involved in the decision making. I think that this is in fact clearly stated in the directive.
With Mrs Ainardi’s report on the technical obstacles and Mr Savary’s report on the Railways Agency, which will be very important in the future as it will have to do a great deal of the work, we are thus taking a significant step towards a European railway environment. Mr Jarzembowski’s report is also a significant step forward. What we need are open, dynamic, commercially-oriented railway companies that think European, not just nationally or locally. The culture of the national monopoly is still very much in evidence and too often prevents Europe’s railways from operating efficiently."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples