Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.12.2-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, before going into the details of the various issues relating to the package of railway infrastructures, I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the two rapporteurs, Mr Swoboda and Mr Jarzembowski, on the magnificent work they have done.
Before thanking the two rapporteurs on their work once again, which I know has been very complex – I fully appreciate this – but which I believe has been very important, and before commenting on all the amendments one by one, I would ask the rapporteurs and Parliament as a whole for a degree of flexibility, so that in the end we may achieve a conciliation – since I fear that we will have to go to conciliation, the way things are going – which will allow us to move forward with this package which has a key role to play in the future of the railway.
Turning specifically to each of the reports, after these general comments, and perhaps in order to clarify and not to prolong this debate any further, I would like to refer to amendments relating to the Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC, whose rapporteur is Mr Jarzembowski. We could accept Amendments Nos 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21 and 24. On the other hand, I must reject – although I insist that I agree fully with many of them, but cannot accept them – Amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27.
Amendments Nos 6, 8, 9 and 11, which propose the separation of the operators of infrastructures from the providers of services, clarify the text enormously. I also consider it important to remove Article 6(4), which I believe could be a source of misunderstandings and, therefore, I particularly support Amendment No 8 and the corresponding corrections to the wording.
As for the directives which are the subject of Mr Swoboda’s report, with regard to Directive 95/18/EC, we cannot accept Amendment No 1, since Article 12 serves as a reminder that, as well as European legislation, there are national rules which must be respected – there is an element of national regulation which in no way disappears as a result of this regulation – and, nevertheless, we do accept Amendment No 24.
With regard to Directive 95/19/EC, there are key questions such as, for example – and Mr Swoboda and Mr Ortuondo have mentioned this – the issue of the establishment of tariffs on marginal costs or on total costs, in one case seeing it as a transitional period, in another, as a key element. I would like to say that, although I would perhaps have preferred other proposals, the Commission accepts Amendments Nos 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20; but we cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 21, 22 and 23.
Mr President, I would once again like to thank the two rapporteurs for their work and ask for flexibility, from them and from Parliament, so that in the end we may achieve a result, which must also be supplemented by the other directive, which involves the interoperability of the systems themselves, which would be a great step forward. There are perhaps some who want more, and others who want a little less, but I am sure that reality will prove us right.
I am delighted that Parliament is standing firmly by its convictions in this area, especially with regard to the full realisation of a railway transport market. Because what we are talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is not simply achieving fifteen juxtaposed national railway systems, but carrying out integration by means of a joint shared network throughout the length and breadth of Europe which will specifically allow the railway to function better.
As has already been pointed out by the two rapporteurs – and also Mr Rack when he referred to the number of letters that he had received from different voters – although this involves some very technical issues, at the end of the day it is to a large extent a political issue. In this respect, it inspires passionate sentiments, as has been pointed out and as we have just heard a moment ago.
I would like to say that what is clear to most of us is that things cannot continue as they are: with closed public systems, which are national, confined within national borders, which are leading to a situation where the railway, day after day, is losing its share of the market in goods transport and in the transportation of persons as well, with the exception of a very specific form of transport, that is, high speed trains and suburban trains.
In this respect, we must make a change, we must propose solutions which will improve the quality of the service, because that is the important thing for consumers and users. We believe that, if our first aim is to create a situation where a train can reasonably travel from Hamburg to Lisbon, the first thing we have to do is to see to it that that train can belong to a German company, a French company, a Spanish company, a Portuguese company etc. These may be public or private, nobody is questioning that, but it is obvious that, if we integrate the network, this automatically leads to an opening up of our market. So let us forget dogma, examples of which I have heard here tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to tell the two rapporteurs that I like their amendments very much. However, having said this, I will not be able to accept many of them, although I would have loved to have done so. I am going to tell you why, because I am one of those people who believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that it is better to make progress than to reach an impasse.
To accept the amendments of both Mr Jarzembowski and Mr Swoboda, the vast majority of which correspond much more to the Commission’s initial proposal and to my own opinions on the whole, would mean disregarding a compromise which was reached with great difficulty in the Council, as you know, after long arguments, after long periods of impasse and stalemate on this issue, which kept us talking into the early hours of the morning.
I would therefore like to say that there is a margin, because Parliament is not being ignored – Parliament must participate in the creation of these directives – but there exists a fundamental compromise with the Council which I, of course, cannot disregard and you must understand this. That would be counterproductive in terms of what both you and I want to see, which is the promotion of improvements in the railways.
I would like to say that next year I am prepared to present an additional step, a different initiative, which may be accepted or rejected, both by the Council or by Parliament, when the time comes, and modified in its various fields, and which will also deal with certain aspects, at least with regard to the transportation of persons or, possibly, the transport of goods internally within the different countries, but which will be separate from the current package, on which we have reached a fundamental compromise – I insist – with the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples