Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.1.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like once again to congratulate the four rapporteurs on their excellent work and say that, in general, the amendments they propose support – as I said at the beginning of my first speech – the Commission’s proposals. Furthermore, in some cases, they propose going further and more quickly in the reform of the rail sector. That is why the majority of the proposals are acceptable to the Commission, either in their current form or in principle. I believe that they clearly improve on the Commission’s initial text: they provide it with detail, they improve it and they clarify some of the specific points.
With regard to Mr Jarzembowski’s report, in relation to the opening up of the market, I would stress his support for the Commission’s proposal, with a view to completing the opening up of the market in the transport of goods by rail. The amendments presented deal with coordination in the time between the entry into force of Directive 2001/12/EC, on the first stage of the opening up to competition of goods transport by rail, which must be incorporated into the legislation of the Member States so that, from 15 March 2003, we have a starting gun for the whole of the European Union, with the supplementary stages we propose and, specifically, the incorporation of all the networks of the Union countries into a European network. In this regard, all these amendments are acceptable to the Commission.
With regard to the amendments which propose extending the opening up to competition of the passenger sector, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Jarzembowski, the Commission believes that, in order to produce positive effects, this opening up, which requires a differentiated pace, requires a more appropriate and stricter framework. This opening up should therefore be considered not only from the point of view of the contracts signed by public administrations – something already regulated by the proposed regulations on public service obligations, which is still awaiting the decision of the Council, since Parliament gave its opinion on them some time ago – but also from the point of view of access rights and the protection of passenger rights.
Mr Jarzembowski, we cannot accept these amendments, because we are waiting to present a proposal this year specifically for passengers and which will deal in a coherent manner with the problem of opening up competition in the railways for the passenger sector. I would like to thank Mr Jarzembowski for his support for the proposals the Commission will shortly present.
With regard to Mr Sterckx’s report on rail safety, we can accept the majority of the amendments, either in their current form or in principle, with some modifications of the text. I am referring essentially to the amendments which strengthen the requirement for transparency in terms of safety and which advocate a more rapid and intensive convergence of the strictest possible safety rules. I believe that that is the important point. However, we cannot accept either Amendment No 18 nor Amendment No 48, because they would be contrary to a clear distribution of responsibilities; we also have difficulties in accepting Amendment No 34, since we believe that it could considerably reduce the European scope of safety certificates.
On the other hand, I must say that we attach the greatest possible importance to the independence of investigating bodies in the event of accidents, and we cannot therefore accept any restriction of this independence. We do not therefore accept Amendment No 56.
I share Mrs Ainardi’s view of the problem of investments, because all of this is going to require considerable investments on the part of the Member States of the Union. Each of the Member States has an interest in promoting this modernisation of the railways, but there is also a very obvious European interest in promoting the modernisation of the trans-European railway system. This is something that we must bear in mind if we really want to achieve the objective and ambitions of the Lisbon European Council. Therefore, I am going to make an appeal in this regard, with a view to the post-Berlin financial perspectives, that the budgets for rail transport infrastructures be increased, in a plan to create the trans-European rail network, which requires a special effort.
We accept the proposal of the orange box of recorders, which will be strengthened with the LRTMS. Here also we can accept the majority of the amendments, but not all of them, since some of them are not in line with the principles.
With regard to the report by Mr Savary, who, like all the Members and myself, is one of the friends of the railways, the key element which completes the whole circle is precisely the agency. I would like to thank Mr Savary for the improvements he contributes through his proposals. Several amendments deal with the way the agency will have to work with all the countries involved, that is, companies, operators, manufacturers of materials, operators of infrastructures and also users and people working in the rail sector. We support all these amendments, in particular Amendment No 14, which we consider to be very positive.
We naturally also support various amendments relating to the institutional organisation of the agency which deal, for example, with the new financial regulation, which did not exist when the proposal was originally made. However, there are other amendments which cause us difficulties, for example those which would effectively confer decision-making powers on the agency, when we believe that it must only have the capacity to make technical proposals.
Other amendments are superfluous in view of provisions in force or proposals planned for 2003 and we cannot therefore accept them.
I will provide Parliament’s Secretariat with a complete list indicating the Commission’s position on each of the amendments, but I would nevertheless like to make a few comments in relation to our discussions and some general assessments of the amendments.
I would like to conclude, Mr President, by once again thanking the four rapporteurs and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for the work they have done, and I would like to thank this Parliament for its support.
Following my conversations with the Greek Presidency, I am sure that under its mandate, and very possibly at the Council in March, we will have a common position from the Council, and I hope it will allow us, if not at first reading, at least at the second, to reach an agreement on this extremely important package.
Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, I am surprised that some of you are still raising the debate on whether or not the railways should be liberalised. Ladies and gentlemen, to those of you who love the railways so much that they want nothing to be done, all I can say is that over the years we have seen what is taking place: the railways are disappearing. If we do nothing – and I say this to those who are so worried that jobs will be lost with this supposed liberalisation – what will happen is that there will be no jobs, except for those which remain in the railway museums of the different countries of the European Union. That is what we have to realise.
We are not talking about privatising the rail network. That is an option which may be chosen by some countries, but I would like to point out to the honourable Member that for the only one that had adopted the fixed network, the fixed infrastructure, we have recently authorised a series of very significant State measures in order to renationalise that rail network. The Commission is not adopting any action of this type. We are proposing something different: the network is a natural monopoly, and therefore, the existence of non-public ownership would lead to many difficulties, and there should be a series of public controls of this natural monopoly. We are saying that a natural monopoly, such as a European network, should above all be European, there should be no national concept, but a global European one, which requires common technological, administrative and safety rules.
Secondly, we argue that there should be competition between the various operators. Ladies and gentlemen, some of you are concerned that there will be competition between the French operator – or the French operators, France will decide what to do – and the German, British or any other European Union operator. The only alternative to this situation of competition is to create a single European operator, operating for the entire European rail network. Do the honourable Members really believe that this can be done? That this is the way to make the railways more operative, more competitive and more dynamic, and to recover the market quotas and the sections of transport which correspond to them?
I frankly believe not; that is not the way forward. The way forward is the one we are proposing: the conception and planning of the railways at European level – later I will discuss funding as well; European planning of the railways and for the different operators currently in the countries of the European Union to be able to compete within this network. And, if there are new operators – because the legislation in the different countries authorise this – that they fulfil suitable requirements to be able to operate throughout this rail network, and that they also compete.
We are talking about introducing rationality into the rail sector and turning it into a rail sector which is European and appropriate for the twenty-first century.
I understand, as Mr Caveri, chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, has said, that the Directorate-General for Transport has made them work hard on the railways. As Commissioner responsible for transport, I would like to thank the chairman and the entire committee once again for their understanding, support and cooperation in all our work.
Mr President, I will refer briefly to the amendments tabled."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples