Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.1.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I would first like to congratulate the Commissioner and thank all the members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism who have worked so enthusiastically on these documents. I would like to express my appreciation first to the four rapporteurs for their excellent work, and to all the political groups. I think that we have all put a lot into this second package because we feel that we need to develop the European rail network. In the first place, I believe that we must make it clear to those who might have certain concerns or prejudices about the issue, that Europe really does need a railway network. Europe needs a railway network because it will have to deal with serious environmental problems in the years to come. The public will not forgive us for not developing alternatives to road transport. Furthermore, European Union involvement in railways represents an opportunity for the sector, not a constraint or a threat.
Lastly, we hope there will be consultative committees, inquiry bodies and safety authorities. I have to say that personally I would be very worried if Amendment No 49 were carried, as this would destroy the entire proposal. It seems to me that, on the occasion of this significant vote on the Agency, it would be unfortunate to content ourselves with the text adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. I will finish on that note. I had intended to comment on the Jarzembowski report but I have run out of time and will do so in private.
What is clear is that the rail systems inherited from the old nation states are today no longer able to meet current demands. As the Commissioner has reminded us, it is apparent that as regards freight transport in particular, in regions like mine, the cancer of lorries and cars is spreading day by day and people are continually asking us for solutions. I therefore believe that we need to commit ourselves firmly to developing the European rail system.
At present there are three solutions or approaches to this problem.
The first way involves national tensions or, in other words, undeclared protectionism. It also entails corporatism and national vote-winning measures. I think that this approach, evident in France and Germany, is not the way forward. We should not fear opening up within the European Union. Once again, this represents an opportunity for the rail sector as a whole.
There is a second way of addressing the problem. I think that the incidents involving the
and the
should give us cause for reflection. There is a price to be paid for transport. Transport policy cannot solely involve lowering prices through unbridled competition. We must not ignore recent maritime disasters. As a result of these terrible events we are today to set new standards and doubtless increase the cost of transporting dangerous goods by sea. At the same time we are moving in the opposite direction in the rail sector, and saying that policy of dumping at any price and competition at any price is an end in itself.
I think that the third way of tackling the rail sector is that of opening it up in a controlled way. This involves maintaining the culture and expertise developed by the rail sector while ensuring that networks are opened up. In my opinion, this is the Swiss way. The first way, the French and German way, is too conservative. There are lessons to be learnt regarding the second British and Dutch way. The third, the Swiss way, opening up within a framework of functional integration, should be our enduring model. If we do not adopt this model, we are likely to be severely disappointed.
The European Union should of course direct this policy. In particular, it should have control of the implementation of rules and European harmonisation measures incumbent on all Member States. I believe that safety must be an absolute priority, because a safety culture is crucial for the railways. It is therefore essential that we adopt this approach. I would like to thank Commissioner de Palacio for the proposals that formed the basis of these very important reports. As regards the Sterckx report, a crucial document in my opinion, we must be fully aware that safety policy must not amount to a policy for diluting responsibilities. We must not draw up a policy that will entail the levelling-down of safety standards. Rather, we must have a very demanding policy that maintains functional integrity. This means maintaining the functional integration of the railway while ensuring political and judicial independence. As regards the Ainardi report, I would simply hope that the amendments compatible with those relating to the Agency are adopted.
Lastly, on my report relating to an Agency to harmonise rail safety, the competent committee has already voted on 48 amendments. I thought we could have left it there, but yet another amendment has just been tabled. We hoped this Agency would be an executive Agency of the Commission, steered by the Commission as far as possible. Thus we have an amendment stating that the Commission would preside over the Agency. This falls within the scope of the executive. One would therefore assume that the European Parliament would not be represented. I would like the number of Member States not to be increased but to remain at six. I would like them to adopt an executive posture, rather than what could be termed a parliamentary or legislative one. I trust they will find it in themselves to do so.
In addition, we hoped to make the Agency a common organisation for the whole of the European rail industry. I am personally convinced that we will not be able to develop a European rail system if the players in the sector are not agreed on working together to develop it. We have therefore proposed including representatives from the entire rail sector on the administrative board. Clearly, this will allow progress to be made on many issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples