Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.1.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall take advantage of this second opportunity to address the House to comment in more detail on Mr Jarzembowski’s report. This document contains two groundbreaking proposals. The first involves the abolition of the Trans-European Rail Freight Network and contemplates the complete liberalisation of international as well as national, regional and local freight networks by 2006. The second involves the opening up and liberalisation of the rail passenger network.
As regards the first proposal, I share the view that we need to make a strong political gesture in support of railways. Though it may not be wise to be forever changing the dates, I personally support Mr Jarzembowski’s proposals for freight, given that the issue is now so worrying.
I have many more reservations however about international rail passenger services. Unlike freight, I do not consider the liberalisation of passenger services to be an absolute priority. I regularly take the train and have not encountered any particular difficulties at border crossings. I am nevertheless aware that there are significant commercial interests at stake in this sector. I do not support the view that we should restrict ourselves simply to creating a rail market. Rather, I think we should work towards a European transport policy, which is not quite the same thing.
To conclude, what has emerged clearly from today’s debate is that, whether or not we open up the rail networks, we cannot restrict our work on a European rail network to liberalisation, competition or opening up networks. If we do, we will have parts of the market that duplicate each other within the same area, and rail will constitute a substitute for road transport.
Other aspects of the transport strategy therefore need to be implemented. The fixing of price scales has to be considered, as does the reduction of the social and fiscal disparities between different means of transport, especially between road and rail transport. I think that the latter should be a priority if we want to ensure that the opening up of the rail market gives the rail sector an advantage over road. We must create an investment policy, not simply a rail market. Consequently, I personally hope that this debate sends a very strong message from the European Parliament to the Council. For many months trans-European rail network funding policy has been deadlocked in the Council. It has maintained a regressive approach to the matter and does not want to consider fiscal issues, fuel taxation or large European loans. It is my belief that without a major and ambitious policy on rail infrastructure, our attempts at opening up the sector will not put a stop to the dominance of road transport but will only lead to a fight between the various rail companies.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the message I would like to send from the European Parliament to the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples