Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.7.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yes, it was a difficult birth, but in the end it was a successful birth. As with any birth, there were people to assist. Sometimes there are also people who get in the way, but in this case I should like to mention only those who assisted, in particular Commissioner de Palacio, who, as transport commissioner, was a very great help to us in finding a good solution. I want to stress this in particular, in recognition of her outstanding work.
But the question of labour law and working hours is also important. Here, too, the treatment is unfair. Here, too, the Commissioner has promised, and the Council has already decided in principle, to help us to put an end to the unfair undercutting of tariffs and prices in the Member States of the European Union – a particularly common practice by the Willi Betz company – in order to arrive at a fairer system in this particular field with regard to labour law and working hours, another area where the railways are disadvantaged compared to the legal and especially the actual circumstances on the roads.
Of course, there must be investment in the railways. It is not enough to say OK we now have a fine system, but nobody invests. This investment is necessary. I say that especially because of the impending enlargement. If enlargement means having a lot more heavy lorries on our roads, there will be opposition. If enlargement means we get a transport system that is a little fairer and also friendlier to the environment, it will meet with greater acceptance. That is how I understand the railway package that we are proposing today – that we get a transport system that is a little kinder to the environment and a little more just.
The French transport minister, too, who at first perhaps tried – unsuccessfully – to intimidate us a bit, in the end reached a very good compromise with us. I should also like to thank Vice-President Imbeni in particular, who led the parliamentary delegation very circumspectly and very precisely, and also our committee Chairman, Mr Hatzidakis, who backed us in word and deed and showed confidence in the rapporteurs.
I am also saying it was a difficult birth because it took a long time, longer than it should have. But since it is constantly being said that Parliament is so slow and hesitant and
or other procedures are required, I should like to point out that we had the first reading on 10 March 1999, but did not receive the common position until 13 April, over a year later, and that despite the urgency impressed on the committees by Mr Jarzembowski and myself. But we then quickly dealt with the common position on 5 July and adopted the corresponding amendment that same day. After that, the Council again took a relatively long time to make its comments.
I should like to stress that Parliament works quickly when it needs to, and especially when there is close cooperation as between myself and Mr Jarzembowski. It is the Council that always has great difficulty in reaching a common position.
So what does this railway package contain? I believe there are some very important steps, namely the specific steps it contains, but also the forward-looking stance that goes with them. Firstly, what I would call a bespoke liberalisation, a liberalisation that is not untrammelled, that does not go beyond what sensible and reasonable experts think, but is purposeful. I, too, Mr Jarzembowski and a few others, would have liked to have seen something more. We could have been bolder. Be that as it may, the first steps have been taken and they should be followed through, because I also believe that what we have in the text here can, should and, indeed, ought to be put into effect sooner than we have agreed, which for me is the minimum.
Secondly, regarding the cost structure. It is true that, on the one hand, we said, for the short term – and following the Commission’s example – that only marginal costs could be asked for, in other words what an additional train costs on a particular route. But in the long term the aim must be to cover costs completely. Of course, this means covering costs not only on rail, but on the road as well. Proper account must therefore also be taken of environmental costs, which – even if Mr Jarzembowski still does not quite believe it, he is already half convinced – are certainly appreciably higher for road than for rail.
Thirdly, we have not abolished the derogation for individual Member States. It hurts, but we can live with it, and I think we shall get over it in time. I shall, too, and I also thank you for your support in getting a particular principle introduced, or reintroduced, namely that, to a limited extent and where there is good reason for doing so, public services can have priority, of course not to hinder the most important part of traffic, namely commercial traffic, freight traffic, which is the most important since that is what we particularly want to shift from road to rail. We have also managed to get the duration of the framework agreements for railways to use the infrastructure set such that the investments that railway undertakings make will really pay off and actually be made.
Overall, I believe it is a well-rounded package with good provisions. You might say we can go home content tomorrow after the votes. We have all played our part. But not so. Two things are most important. Firstly, the Commissioner has helped us in as much as she has quite clearly stated that further steps will be proposed by the Commission. As I said, I also hope that they will be bespoke and purposeful, which is very important.
The second point, which is also quite important, is that, as I have already mentioned, we must gradually arrive at a system for internalising external costs, i.e. they must be considered for road and rail side by side. That will do away with some of the distortion that still persists, namely the unfair treatment of rail as compared to road. Far-reaching changes will not be achieved over night. So there is no need for hauliers to be afraid. But the railways will and must gradually be given justice and with it, indirectly, the support that is in fact merely the creation of a situation that is fair."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"fast track"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples