Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-14-Speech-1-063-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111114.16.1-063-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Kallas, I, too, would first like to thank the rapporteur for her work. She and many others have poured plenty of cold water on this issue throughout discussions. Not everyone’s expectations have been met in full. That is the nature of any compromise, however.
This nine-year-old railway package has still not been implemented. That is why I have a difficulty when certain people here seek to convince us that what is happening with the railways today basically boils down to the liberalisation that failed to materialise nine years ago. This is a little absurd.
What was it that Parliament wanted to achieve? We wanted greater efficiency. We wanted to create space for the railways. We also wanted the railways of the future to have a bigger market share because we knew that this was necessary for many reasons in relation to passenger and road transport. This implementation has not taken place because, as I would argue, the railway has not been a top priority in many countries. I am convinced that even if we produce the best legislation, if the Council does not play ball tomorrow, despite our decisions, we will find other people standing here in five or 10 years time saying exactly the same thing.
We have been modest in our proposals. We wanted to address various topics. Our primary concern is that we should have a strong regulator who will respect the regulations as they now stand and who will organise the opening up of the market in such a way that the railways will have a greater market share, provide more jobs and achieve greater efficiency.
When it comes to funding and the relationship between service providers and infrastructure operators, I must honestly say that the discussions of recent weeks have been almost etymological in nature. What we wanted is actually quite simple: that public monies, or what has been paid for with public monies, should be paid back by the market not just through profits. These are subsidies and must be ring-fenced. I hope that this point will be understood in the Council and Commission tomorrow. We will then have a good basis for further discussions next year."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples