Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-189"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Development of the Community's railways Certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community International rail passengers' rights and obligations (continuation of debate)2
dcterms:Language	"hu"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070117.11.3-189"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-01-17-Speech-3-1902
lpv:speaker	lp:Etelka Barsi-pataky2
lpv:spokenAs	member; TRAN (2007-01-15--2007-01-30)3 unknown; Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2007-01-15--2007-01-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"The liberalisation of rail travel in the internal market will be fully implemented with the third railway package. It is certainly true that Europe needs a sustainable, efficient rail service. The third railway package, however, will be successful only if economically healthy and logistically prepared modern railway companies provide the service. This is not the case today. Railway companies in the new, and in some cases in old Member States, are struggling with an accumulated deficit, and Member States are faced with the problem of consolidation. All this appears to be a domestic matter, but in terms of its dimensions and significance it is a European-wide problem and puts at risk the implementation of all three of the railway laws being discussed today, especially if we set the bar high. The railway package contains a proposal that extends the preparation time for liberalising domestic passenger transport. In my opinion, this extended preparation time is not sufficient. I suggest to the European Council that it put on the agenda of its work programme the true situation in the expanded European Union, and to address the problem. Furthermore, it is essential to examine what is to be done and what can be done in order to solve the existing railway problem in a significant part of Europe. Thus, it is not a question here of drawing a line between the old and new Member States. On the contrary, let us look for a way to create a well functioning, liberalised rail service throughout Europe that is competitive or complementary to the other transport branches. The goal, therefore, is that existing values in the new Member States – in this case rail service – should not fall victim to the opening up of the internal market, but should instead become a valuable part of it. Unfortunately, previously this did not succeed in the case of certain services. With regard to the liberalisation of domestic passenger transport, I consider the proposed amendment which I submitted to be better than the compromise proposal. The difference between the two is that my proposal would grant every Member State that is not able to prepare itself in time, or that runs into other obstacles, the possibility of a derogation. The compromise proposal would make this possible only for the new Member States. In my opinion, the impact assessment prior to the regulation should in each case extend to the specificities of the new Member States, but the regulation must be unified. In any case, I welcome the fact that the rapporteur and the Committee on Transport and Tourism have striven – as was, in fact, the case the first time – to pay attention in drafting the law to the special problems affecting the new Member States."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph