Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.2.2-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say first of all that work on this second rail package is proceeding in a highly satisfactory manner. It is certainly satisfactory to be holding this debate in the morning, with the benefit of plenty of light and with Minute-takers present. It is worth noting that we are actually working in daylight. For once, we have not been relegated to the twilight hours. Issues of this kind are usually consigned to evening sittings. I would therefore like to reiterate how delighted I am to be dealing with them in prime parliamentary time.
Regarding passenger transport, I am well aware of Parliament’s position. The House made this abundantly clear at first reading. I informed the Council accordingly. The vote in plenary at first reading in Parliament was dealt with as appropriate. The Commission is also fully aware that this position has been maintained in the vote in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.
I should reiterate before the House that we appreciate the concerns underlying these amendments. The Commission has, however, given an undertaking to Parliament and to the Council to present a proposal on opening up passenger transport to competition. The Commission intends to present this proposal before the end of the year. The texts are practically finished. The last internal discussions are under way. The texts are more complex than they appear at first sight. The document should be available to you in a month and a half. You will have it before the end of the year.
It is indeed the case that even if the Commission presents the proposal on time, it will not be possible to debate it during this term. Mr Jarzembowski was quite right to point that out. The debate could perhaps be launched, but I suspect it would not be possible to conclude the first reading. On this subject, I would like to say to honourable Members that the Commission will present the text. We trust this Parliament will begin work on it, and that it or its successor will bring the work to a satisfactory conclusion. We are all fully aware of the importance of opening up passenger transport to competition. Furthermore, as soon as the Trans-European network is established it will be essential to stop thinking in terms of national criteria for railways and begin to consider European railway criteria.
Henceforth, the geographical reference context will be the whole of Europe, not one specific country or another. It will be necessary to think in terms of the European network as a whole. Consequently, all the companies already in existence in the various European countries must have free access to that European network. Once access is granted, the companies will compete amongst themselves. That is the logical outcome of the steps taken.
As soon as a European railway law comes into force, existing European operators will begin to compete amongst themselves. Competition will automatically come about as soon as Europe becomes the reference area, rather than some specific country. This is not an ideological issue. It is a fact. It is simply a logical consequence of the nature of the measures adopted. It is one of the advantages of European integration.
In addition, I should say that I believe this kind of competition will spur the railway companies to modernise. Modernisation is sorely needed. Ladies and gentlemen, I certainly agree with you that the safety criterion is crucial. It must remain so. Safety needs to be the aim and the watchword of rail transport. It must not be compromised by the other changes envisaged.
Finally, Mr Jarzembowski, I should like to congratulate you on your efforts and on the work you have put in. I understand your position, one shared by a substantial majority of the House, but I am unable to support those amendments. I can, however, provide an assurance that the text on opening up passenger transport to competition will be presented before the end of the year.
As I conclude, I should like to thank the rapporteurs once again. Mrs Ainardi, Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Sterckx and Mr Savary have all done splendid work. Thanks are also due to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and to the whole House.
Some points do remain for conciliation with the Council. A number of them may prove problematic. It is to be hoped that suitable accommodations will be found. The second rail package could then be finalised. The first rail package was completed during this Parliamentary term. If the second package is concluded before the term comes to an end, this Parliament will be able to pride itself on having moved European rail freight transport forward into the twenty-first century. This represents a considerable challenge. It is a challenge that must be met, however, if Europe is to have a balanced and sustainable transport system.
I believe this programming is an indication of the widespread recognition of the importance of the subject under discussion. In particular, it reflects the importance attributed to it by the House. I would like to begin by thanking Parliament most sincerely for all the work undertaken over the years. As several honourable Members recalled, we have now been working together for a long time in the hope of breathing new life into European railways and ensuring the recovery of rail transport.
I should like to thank the four rapporteurs very much for their excellent work. I admit to being one of those who would have preferred to conclude at second reading. Nonetheless, we are proceeding to conciliation. It is to be hoped that the amendments will be adopted tomorrow and will provide what little further clarification is required on the minor points remaining for discussion in Council.
I do believe that a positive result for the rail sector will eventually be achieved. The ultimate beneficiary will be European society. Throughout the time we have worked together we have contrived to find solutions to most of the problems raised. We have also clarified our positions and found ways forward resulting in compromises and agreements.
I should like to begin by responding to Mr Savary. The Commissiondoes not object to most of the amendments tabled concerning the European Railway Agency. We are only opposed to five of the 32 amendments tabled. Essentially, we adopted this stance on the grounds of legal clarity or in the interests of avoiding complications or excessive bureaucracy in the Agency’s work. I think it is worth emphasising that the Commission does support the amendments relating to the composition of the Administrative Board. The rapporteur has just referred to these. We also support the amendments concerning the composition of its working groups. I believe a good balance can be achieved.
I would like to thank Mrs Ainardi for her work on such a technically complex matter. We have cooperated in an exemplary manner. I should state that the Commission is able to support the two amendments tabled by Mr Sterckx at the eleventh hour.
Mr Sterckx was the rapporteur for the directive on safety on the Community’s railways. A large number of amendments to this directive were tabled. This illustrates Parliament’s wish to forge ahead more quickly in this area. We are of course also eager to do so. Nonetheless, some of the amendments tabled incorporate provisions that already exist in the directives on interoperability. Others refer to provisions that will appear in our proposal on driving licences for train drivers due towards the end of this year. Further amendments relate to systematic shortening of the deadlines for drafting European texts on rail safety. The Council had already drastically shortened the deadlines. I therefore believe this is not about being arbitrary but about being realistic. The Council had already shortened the deadlines contained in the initial proposals. A balance seems to have been reached. In that connection, I maintain that for the future agency to succeed from the outset, it must not be overloaded with work. It is also worth mentioning the issue of national safety rules and their monitoring at Community level. These are the most significant amendments, especially in the context of preparing for the vote in the Council. I believe the rapporteur achieved a good balance. We therefore support his amendments to Article 8. Once again, I should like to thank Mr Sterckx for his work.
Turning to Mr Jarzembowski’s report, it should be noted that it falls into two parts. One concerns freight transport and the other passenger transport.
We fully support Parliament’s amendments regarding freight transport. It should be borne in mind, however, that eventually agreement will need to be reached with the Council concerning deadlines and authorised applicants. Nonetheless, I am confident of a positive outcome."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples