Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-464"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.39.2-464"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, long before the European Union came into existence, we had a well-organised system of railways in most of Europe. From the end of the 19th century, the railways, together with the postal services, were one of the main responsibilities of the State. Each country was responsible for its own railways.
In most countries the State had become the owner of the main or the only domestic railway company. The need for this arose because the original private companies were mainly geared up to making quick profits. They had not succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and continuity of the service. After they were taken over by the States, the infrastructure and frequency of service improved. The infrastructure belonged to the national railways and therefore to the State.
The running of passenger trains and freight trains was in the same hands, so coordination between passenger and freight transport, on the one hand, and maintenance, expansion and optimal use of the infrastructure, on the other hand, was good. There was no need for any separate bureaucratic state bodies to interfere. Almost everything, apart from the sleeper cars and restaurant cars in international trains travelling long distances, was regulated at national level. Besides, international cooperation was very good. International train travellers saw the railways as one large overarching European institution. At station ticket offices you could get hand-written tickets to anywhere in Europe and good information about services abroad.
Regional cross-border connections and connections over very long distances between countries which did not share a border were much more readily available than they are today. That system, which we might envy today, had four weaknesses, especially after electrification. Countries opted for different mains voltages and different types of electronic safety systems. Freight trains were impeded by controls, and having to uncouple and transfer freight at border stations. As public transport increasingly was operating at a loss due to the rise of the car, sections of track at the borders were thinned out and passengers had to pay an extra charge to cross the border. After the arrival of air travel, information and ticket sales for long international journeys were increasingly neglected.
Solely on points like these the European Union could deliver improvements. It has been a matter of great concern to my group for years that intervention by the European Union has not focused in the first place on these cross-border improvements but mainly on further liberalisation. To limit the damage caused by these changes, more bureaucratic supervision is again necessary.
In a series of earlier decisions on the railways since 2001 certain
have been established. Based on this new reality my group is seeking the best possible outcome for the future. The outcomes proposed in second reading look relatively good. A number of considerations relating to subsidiarity, safety and the desire not to leave everything to agreements between the now privatised railway companies have led us to the position where, despite our earlier criticism, we will vote in favour."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples