Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.22.2-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank the chairman of our committee, Paolo Costa, and all of our colleagues, be they rapporteurs – one of whom has just spoken – shadow rapporteurs or coordinators, for the very intensive and quite remarkable work that they have done on behalf of the European Parliament.
When it comes to Mr Zīle’s report, without wishing to offend the rapporteur, who has done an excellent job, I am of course more cautious, quite simply because the railway undertakings value the contractual relationship and goods are a great deal more heterogeneous than passengers. Transporting one kind of merchandise can be very different from transporting another.
Finally I turn to Mr Jarzembowski’s report, and here I am personally more cautious. I voted in favour of liberalising the freight market because freight was not working. When it comes to passenger transport, it seems to me that this is all about a few large companies coveting the national networks. It is cabotage that troubles me more than anything else. We all know full well that in reality there is no market for services from Paris to Rome. However, there is a market between Paris and Lyon and between Lyon and Marseilles, and that is what the large companies are eyeing up. I am concerned about the small countries, countries of limited size, whose national lines are actually on international lines that might disappear tomorrow or be absorbed by large operators like SNCF or Deutsche Bahn. Moreover, that is precisely why these large companies are so interested.
I should like, in conclusion, to say that, as I see it, if we think in terms of transport markets – and no one has denied this for the last ten years – it is road that wins. We have to think in terms of transport policy and the essential factor is not simply competition within the rail sector, which is the objective that we have been pursuing obsessively for years, but providing the conditions to enable there to be competition between road and the other modes of transport. Until we have settled this point rail will decline, as it is declining today for open freight.
I listened carefully to Mr Jarzembowski, who mentioned a Frenchman who was, he said, hostile to the package. I do not know whom he meant. No doubt he knows this man. In any case I do not. That is why I have argued strongly that we should vote on all of the texts today and forward them to the Council. Parliament has done its work and the package is ready. We will forward it to the UK Presidency tomorrow and I hope moreover that the UK Presidency will make a decision, so that if possible – although we should perhaps not be too idealistic – this complicated dossier can be completed under Mr Blair’s Presidency.
The package is moving forward: I simply wanted us to put it to the vote today and not defer the work that has been done by the European Parliament. There is no reason to do so, because there is at least one text that is rather urgent and that is the text on the licence for train drivers. This is not because it was the subject of fairly broad agreement in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, but quite simply because liberalisation is underway. The international rail freight market has been open since 15 March 2003 and we need this text today to ensure that drivers operating international rail transport services are properly trained.
I would add in respect of my own report that it is quite exemplary and I hope that the message that we in Parliament send out tomorrow will be equally so.
Why is it exemplary? Firstly, because it sends out a social signal, when until now we have essentially sent out economic or liberalisation signals. I have always argued here that rail transport should be a matter for everyone, including railway workers, and I do not think that this initiative will be successful if those who work on the railways feel that the European rail system is no concern of theirs. We have set up a Railway Agency, in which we are going to involve the social partners; we need to ensure that the social partners feel that they have a stake in the investment that we are all making in the future of rail transport.
That is why we need to take this text, which has been agreed by both sides of industry, by the employers and the unions – which is very rare at European level – and today enshrine it in legislation. It is an exercise – a fairly straightforward one at the end of the day, because the work has been done – that consists of transposing a historic, social agreement into substantive European law, an agreement that calls for others, perhaps one day collective agreements enabling railway workers to feel that they all have a stake in opening up rail networks.
That is why I will take the liberty of asking for as broad an agreement as possible on my report tomorrow, a report to which the committee has made many improvements, which may appear trivial, but which are actually important. Firstly, we have extended it. We think that in the long term all workers on all of the networks should, if they so wish, have an international driver’s licence. Every national driver has a right to become an international driver if he so wishes.
We also wanted to clarify the text. We have clearly stated the definitions of drivers and train crews, in the case of the latter referring to a forthcoming proposal from the Commission, to be based on work done by the Agency, which will be carried out openly and in consultation with stakeholders. We have also made the text more precise in terms of training, in terms of the benefits that each worker gains from his experience and in terms of how the training is financed, given that some drivers that have been trained by one railway undertaking may subsequently move to another. Finally, we have made the dates more consistent and have brought forward the date of transposition. That is the basic substance of the report that our committee is proposing to you.
I should now like to make a few final comments on the other texts. I think that Mr Sterckx’s report on passenger rights is absolutely essential. There is no reason to establish passenger rights in air transport and not in rail transport. Moreover, given that there are significant disparities between the Member States and also problems with the system, in particular in my own country, I am pleased that Mr Sterckx is tabling a report along these lines and I hope that the opposition in the Council will be overcome."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples