Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.12.2-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I believe that the rapporteurs have done sterling work and the fruits of their labour, which we submitted under their guidance to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, are a coherent whole with a clearly defined objective. Mr Swoboda referred to this a moment ago: a vigorous railway sector within an internal market, which can be effective for the entire Union. The objective also sends a clear message to the Council, namely that Parliament wants to go further than the Commission. I do not really share Mr Watts’ view. In my opinion, we need to go further than the Council stated in its common position.
We must now set the scene for full liberalisation in the medium term, and the step we are now taking is the first step in this process. This step is also the step currently proposed by the Council. We must also take the next steps, namely implement full liberalisation with regard to the transport of goods by 2005 and take the same step for the transport of passengers nationally and internationally in the longer term, this time by 2010, a deadline which is ten years away.
There are a number of points which are vital in this context, and I hope that a sufficient number of MEPs will be able to support those opinions tomorrow. First of all, it is vital that infrastructure and the provision of services be divided. After all, no one can be on both sides of the fence at the same time. Secondly, who can apply for a licence? Not only railway undertakings, others too should be able to do this. I cannot see why, Mr Swoboda, this should be postponed until 2010. In my opinion, we should be able to bring this date forward to 2005.
I should now like to comment on Article 12, which, I believe, is redundant, and a European licence should be subject to European requirements. That is not to say that consumers, railway workers’ social rights or safety are deemed immaterial. In fact, safety should come first. European requirements should apply because a European railway system requires regulations at European level rather than additional regulations at national level, because the latter would enable Member States to carry out certain activities which they no longer have to do within a European market. If we pursue this line of attack, railway undertakings will need to put their customers and passengers first, rather than act out of self-interest.
I would like to add a brief, technical comment. Amendment No 23 has been declared inadmissible by the services. I would dispute this on the basis of Rule 80, paragraph 2 (b), and Rule 80, paragraph 3, of our Rules of Procedure. I would invite the services to reconsider their view, because my amendment is also related to Amendment No 24 regarding Article 12, which
declared admissible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples