Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.2.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I should like to congratulate the four rapporteurs on the work they have done and to wish them continuing success, because it is obvious that the conciliation procedure with the Council is going to follow. I should like to focus mainly to start with on the question of the liberalisation of the railways, in order to make a number of political observations, in the belief that behind the discussions on individual amendments and technical arrangements we are losing the substance.
Ladies and gentlemen, shipping has been liberalised for a great many years now. Road transport in Europe has been liberalised for a number of years now. The same applies to air transport. I think this is a paradox. There is no justification for why the railways in particular should be shackled and why there should not be a single network and free competition at European level. I should honestly like someone to explain this to me in good faith, not hidden behind the interests of certain groups or companies, but on the basis of the rules of common sense.
We must always bear in mind that we cannot talk about a single European market if we do not have a single transport network. And unless the rail network is also liberalised, this cannot be achieved. All the more so in that all the political powers of Europe want, theoretically at least, to promote the railways, because they are an environmentally-friendly means of transport. Consequently, it is vital that we proceed with courageous steps in the field of liberalisation and I would honestly say to you that, if I personally had to decide what needed to be done on the railway market, I would liberalise it tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning, of course taking all the steps needed for safety rules, so that we have liberalisation at a high level with no risk to passengers, as is the case in air transport. Having said which, I think it is absurd to continue this debate, which keeps putting the issue off and looks like a rearguard battle which quite simply, in my opinion, seeks to serve specific interests. However, in all events, we need to operate here not on the basis of my personal wishes but on the basis of political consensus.
Parliament, for years at the vanguard of the liberalisation of the railways, is quite right to insist on the amendments made at first reading and I hope that, within the framework of the conciliation which will follow, we shall be able, with the Italian Presidency, to find the best possible result by December. I hope that the Commissioner will help us with the statement she has made and which may be used as a final refuge so that, immediately afterwards, we can proceed to liberalise the railway market as far as passengers are concerned.
Thereafter, the permanent concern of Parliament, and obviously of our group, is safety. That is why we talk in the Sterckx report of black boxes, as used on ships and in aeroplanes. That is why we talk about European driving licences for train drivers, that is why, in the report by Mrs Ainardi, we raise the question of funding for interoperability, because we want interoperability at a high level and not at a minimum level, as the Council wants. We shall proceed in this spirit, hoping that, by the end of the Italian Presidency at the end of December, we shall have the best possible result on the criterion of the liberalisation of the railway market, not because we consider it an end in itself, but because we believe that it is the best way of serving the European economy, European consumers and the workers themselves, in that more jobs will be created."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples