Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.2.2-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Speaking both personally and as a member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, the left-wing group of the European Parliament, I would like to remind you in the clearest possible terms of the principles that must inform the assessment of this European rail package.
The first principle is that rail transport is a public service. Where rail transport is still a public service, it must remain so. Where liberalisation has severely reduced its status as a public service, this must be restored.
The second principle is this. Europe is a densely populated continent, with many urban areas. It also has rural and mountainous areas affected by desertification. On our continent rail transport plays an essential role in national and regional development. Only the railways can put a stop to two interrelated tendencies whose consequences are abundantly clear. On the one hand there is the unchecked concentration of people in urban areas and on the other the desertification of the countryside. Together, they are laying waste to our land.
The third principle is as follows. Rail transport is the only effective answer to the rapidly rising demand to transport more and more people and goods. It is also the only answer to the apparently contradictory but equally important need to preserve our environment and increase the quality of our lives.
These three principles are convergent and interlinked. These are the grounds on which my group and I oppose the compulsory privatisation of the railways. We also oppose all decisions or measures seeking to regulate the rail industry solely by market forces. Countries that went down this road are in a worse position than those that did not. They are in a worse position as lines have been closed. Worse, they have serious safety problems. I am sure you know which countries I am referring to. I need not name them.
On the basis of these three principles, our group opposed what I would term Mr Jarzembowski’s compulsive desire for liberalisation. This was also the basis for our rejection of the harmonisation of the networks as proposed in the Sterckx report. We would prefer harmonisation to be less of a herald of liberalisation. We therefore endorsed the Savary report, concerning the creation of a European Railway Agency. Representatives of employees’ organisations would sit on its Administrative Board. Lastly, it was because of these three principles that we voted for Mrs Ainardi’s proposals. The latter provide for social and environmental issues to be taken into account and for high safety requirements.
Following the decisions of the Council after the first reading, and the recent votes in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, we will again oppose liberalisation of freight transport by 2006 and of passenger transport by 2007. We will establish our final position on the Sterckx report on the basis of the results of the vote on the amendments in plenary. We will continue to support the reports and positions of Mr Savary and Mrs Ainardi. They are in line with the principles we hold dear."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples