Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.22.2-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, fellow sufferers, it is once again our good fortune to be taking part in such an important debate at 9 p.m., alone in our cosy circle of rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs.
Permit me to draw the House’s attention to just two more things. We already have a brake for the opening-up of the networks, and in particular for opening them up for domestic rail transport. The reason is that we share the Commission’s view that it should not be compulsory to open up the networks if this would create difficulties for a regional passenger service, by which we mean not just possible difficulties, but an actual threat to its economic viability. Naturally, it is not our intention for this opening-up of networks to endanger regional transport.
I should like to say to my Dutch fellow-Members that there is no need to worry. I do believe that the brake, which you yourselves proposed for cross-border transport, but which is even more important for domestic transport, will enable us to prevent the collapse of domestic regional transport, because there is no obligation to open up the networks in this case. Our fellow-Members from smaller countries can put aside their reservations in this regard.
I do not wish to go into detail on our desire to amend Directive 2001/14/EC in order to give high-speed railway lines a better chance of planning for the longer term. By way of conclusion, there is something else to which I should just like to draw your attention. Parliament – with the exception of individual Members right at the back – has always said that the package should remain intact, as the Commission proposed it. That is why we also put back the date for the introduction of this package in plenary. Once we have made our decision, the Council is free to take its own.
The least positive experience has been with the Meijer report. Our first reading of this – following a Commission proposal on public transport in 2000 – was in November 2001. The Council has done nothing to date except to deliberately shelve this proposal. The Council is falling short in the performance of its duties; it lacks the courage to address this difficult issue. We have said, however, that these four parts belong together, and they also belong with the proposal on public transport. We have said that we are prepared to bring this issue to a definitive conclusion with a legislative resolution in plenary, as soon as the Council gives us a signal.
The Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism informed us this afternoon that the British Transport Secretary, Mr Darling, has assured us that this package will be kept intact. For this reason, we, too, should take the leap tomorrow and not just vote on the amendments, but also on the legislative resolutions, so that tomorrow afternoon we are able to state our position on the third railway package, to state our opinion. I would appeal to the Council to keep its word, to leave the package intact, to make sound proposals, then we shall be able to make good progress. I hope that, at the Council meeting on 6 October, the British Presidency will actively represent the signal that we are going to give tomorrow, and speed up the work.
Amid all the details, let us not forget that we are doing this not for the sake of liberalisation, or because we are self-opinionated; we are doing it in the interests of passengers, because we can see the increasing trend towards passengers taking their cars or using low-cost airlines for long-distance journeys rather than taking the train. In line with our general thinking regarding freight, however – that it must be taken off the roads and put onto the rails – our line of thinking must be to make passengers an offer that tempts them out of cars and aeroplanes and back onto trains.
We should not let this annoy us too much, however, but rather address ourselves to the issue. I believe that the Vice-President has allies among us in favour of the package remaining a package, apart from a lone French voice. We do know, of course, that French voices are sometimes particularly important.
Nevertheless, I believe that the majority wishes to, and will, keep the package intact. That is what we shall do tomorrow, and not just as an end in itself. Even I, as a lawyer, shall not put forward the argument that, almost 13 years after completion of the internal market, we really should set about completing the internal market in passenger transport. This argument is a good one for lawyers, but we shall refrain from making it.
The intention with the third package is to make long-distance and regional transport more reliable and customer-friendly. That is our goal. We want there to be competition, we want better services for the benefit of passengers. Those are our objectives. That is why the issues of opening up national railway networks on a non-discriminatory basis for use by all railway undertakings, uniform passengers’ rights throughout the EU and the use of the same train drivers belong together. We do not want a situation in which, despite now having locomotives that can cross borders, the train still has to stop at the border to change drivers – only to find that the new driver is on holiday or off sick, and the train remains at a standstill.
The aim is not only for people to be able to buy a ticket to anywhere in Europe, but also for them to arrive there quickly. This is why we need the third railway package. Admittedly there were discussions in my group at first, but then we, too, fell in with the line of thought of dispensing with regulations on quality requirements or freight traffic. Since we are opening up the networks for cross-border transport as of 1 January 2006 and for domestic freight traffic as of 1 January 2007, we hope that competition will have indeed developed in two or three years’ time, and that we shall not then need legislation on quality requirements.
Competition can already be seen in traffic in the Alpine region, and customers have the choice between the services of two different alliances of railway undertakings. This is why I do not believe that we need any legislation on quality requirements; the market will regulate this.
I should now like to introduce several aspects of my report. I do not believe that it is always necessary to break new ground; instead, when it comes to the development of railway undertakings, we should go back to what Parliament decided at second reading of the second railway package.
At that time, we decided, by an overwhelming majority, to open up the networks not only for cross-border, but also for domestic rail transport as of 1 January 2008. That was what we called for two years ago; why should we now turn back, I ask myself. To give all the parties involved more time, however, the Committee is proposing that the opening-up be staggered: 1 January 2008 for cross-border rail transport, but 1 January 2012 for domestic rail transport. We all know that, when it comes to negotiations with the Council, 2012 can become 2013 or something else entirely.
If, however, Parliament called for all rail networks to be opened up as of 2008 two years ago, it must stay on this course. I hope that the Vice-President comes round to Parliament’s way of thinking and decides to regulate not only cross-border transport, but also transport throughout the internal market. After all, we have to make headway sooner or later. To be frank, I do not wish to see a fourth, fifth or sixth railway package. We should draw a line under it and decide on liberalisation, the opening-up of the networks, customer orientation and competition with this package."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples