Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070117.9.3-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it is hard to imagine a mode of transport that is in such urgent need of political support as the railways. The third railway package brings us a little further forward. There is nothing controversial about the Savary and Sterckx reports, and I should like to thank the rapporteurs.
Not only train drivers, but other staff, too, must be covered. We should not concern ourselves exclusively with passengers on cross-border services, but with passengers in general. The controversial issue is – as it always has been – how to deal with market opening. Both we and the Council have traditionally made heavy weather of this issue. This has a good deal to do with national safeguard mechanisms, but it also has to do with fears. These positions must of course be respected, but they do not help us achieve a result.
We could of course disregard the liberalisation of rail transport if it were not for the fact that – as has been pointed out several times – other transport sectors have been liberalised without regard for the social or environmental costs in recent years, with disastrous consequences. Tremendous growth in road and air traffic has been recorded for the 1995–2004 period, whilst the railways have been lagging behind and stagnating.
The future looks even more bleak. By 2020, the volume of freight transport will have increased by 50%, and that of passenger transport by 35%, yet the various modes of transport will not benefit equally from the expected 35% increase in passenger transport. The increase will be 108% for the aeroplane, 36% for the car, and just 19% for the railways. These are the Commission’s projections. No one can seriously be happy about these figures.
It may well be that increases in passenger numbers are already being seen at national level; but we have to look at the overall picture. The realisation that it takes one person a 17 000 km rail journey to release a tonne of CO2 pollution into the atmosphere, but a journey of just 3 000 km by air, does lead one to reconsider one’s position on the opening of rail markets.
What we are discussing today is not the Meijer report, as that will have its turn soon, nor the ports package, but instead – for reasons of energy and environmental policy – we are discussing market opening. I would say to Mrs Roth, on the subject of exacting requirements, that 2017/2022 is hardly a sledgehammer approach, but a very gentle one, one that also takes the smaller Member States into consideration. Both the Council and Parliament have incorporated safeguard mechanisms for the smaller Member States. These countries obviously need special protection and consideration.
I shall repeat that, if the railways are to have a real chance, we must permit a measure of market opening in this field. I look forward to the conciliation procedure and hope that the Council Presidency will be very active and willing to compromise, and will bring the matter to a successful conclusion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples