Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.12.2-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one could be forgiven for thinking that the three reports under discussion today are in fact technical reports. But oh what emotions I witnessed when I reported on them in my group today, which is a good thing because a hugely important question is in fact at stake here: the question of how to ensure that the European railways gain in weight again in the future, not in the material sense, but as far as their importance is concerned, because what many people forget when they are busy opposing reforms is that, with the state the railways have got into, they are carrying less and less. Trains are still chugging round Europe, but there is less and less freight in their wagons and that is a state of affairs which we cannot tolerate. That is why I, why we all think, that a European railway sector needs to be developed and the Council resolution, the Council consensus, is really a minimum consensus; it does not satisfy us, even if we perhaps differ in our views on many aspects, such as how much further than the Council we should go.
Of course, we have a lot of lost ground to make up, because in the past we have only had national railways. We talk about globalisation. All today's private-sector undertakings operate transnationally; only the railways seem not to have heard of this. So we need to liberalise and open up the markets and of course everyone has differing ideas as to how this should be done. Some think that the market is the invisible hand, the almost divine principle which should guide and control everything, while others think we should be very circumspect in liberalising the market and should only liberalise it where absolutely necessary. I think that our position, and my position, is that there is a middle way which will allow us to move forward, but it must be clearly defined; we must be clear as to how we are going to bring about the liberalisation of the market, whereby the railways must, of course, be given a chance to adapt to the new conditions one step at a time.
For us, competition is a way of increasing services, i.e. we need to get more traffic on to the railways, especially freight traffic, which is the real sore point, if we are to prevent railway services from shrinking yet further. So it is a gradual process, but a clearer and faster process than that planned by the Council.
First, the overwhelming majority of us takes the view that there should be a competition authority, a regulator as it were, in every country. That would give all railway undertakings, all interested parties, shipping agents, whoever, one authority in each country to which they can take recourse if clarity and transparency of competition are violated. It also means that there can be no derogations. We are building up a European railway, not one system for one country and a different system for another, which is why these derogations have to go. That does not mean that everything will be prescribed down to the last detail, it just means that the freedom which we are granting needs to be granted to all countries equally, not more for some and less for others.
Secondly, we have differing views on the compulsory separation of infrastructures. We think that it must also be possible to trade fairly with integrated undertakings, provided of course that the balance sheet and certain basic conditions are kept separate. Our, or my proposal is that the Commission should present a report in a few years' time and report to Parliament on whether or not the principles of free, transparent competition have been contradicted and then we can take another decision.
We take the view that liberalisation should apply first and foremost to freight traffic, both transnational and, in the end, national freight traffic. As far as passenger traffic is concerned, we feel that it is important and that it suffices, at least for the time being, to state clearly that cross-border passenger traffic will also need to be liberalised. As to whether passenger traffic between Stuttgart and Munich should be liberalised: this is a matter which, in my view, should be decided by the German government or the regional government in Bavaria and not necessarily at European level. We feel that the individual Member States should be given room to manoeuvre and take decisions here.
The pricing system is an important issue. How much should be charged for the capacity allocated? There are two schools of thought here. The first feels that only marginal costs should be charged, i.e. the costs incurred in running one more train. The second school feels that the complete costs of providing the route, tracks etc. should be covered. We feel that charging marginal costs make sense in the short term, in order to ensure that there is competition and that the railways can start running trains again. But in the long term, we will need some sort of complete cost-covering method, similar to the principle applied to the roads. Otherwise we shall never manage to get more freight back on to the railways because this is precisely the problem faced by certain railways, including the German railways, to quote just one example: when the complete cost-covering method is used in the present situation, many companies refuse to use the railways' services because they are simply too expensive. Which is why we need a gradual transition and similar conditions for both roads and railways.
I should like to mention one last point. One criticism heard time and again is: has the whole idea of public-sector services gone to the dogs? Is everything to be run on market principles, on private-sector principles? We have therefore reinstated an original clause on public-sector services, and I am grateful for the support it has received because, unfortunately, the European Commission has not yet submitted any general proposals as to how public-sector services are to be dealt with. It will still be possible for a country to say that public-sector services must take priority at certain times and this priority can therefore be stipulated.
I am sure that tomorrow's vote will set a conciliation procedure in motion. That does not present any particular problem. We, the two rapporteurs, and all the groups in the House are willing to reach a compromise. But the Council must also show willing. We have shown willing and, if the Council shows willing, we will be able to reach a compromise. I should like to close by thanking all those who worked with me, both in my group and in other groups here in Parliament, for all the effort which they invested in this, and of course the Commission, and I hope that tomorrow two or three very good reports will come out of this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples