Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.22.2-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, my main remarks are on the reports by Mr Savary and Mr Zīle, for which I was my group’s shadow rapporteur, and I wish to thank both rapporteurs, who have each been working under very different conditions, for their efforts. Mr Savary’s report concerns a proposal that almost everyone supports, while Mr Zīle had the job of getting backing for a proposal by the Commission that only very few people are interested in. My group is satisfied with the outcome of the vote in the committee, where the proposal for compensation in connection with freight transport was rejected. That is not the same as saying that we see no problems with the quality of freight transport by train. Unfortunately, there is a lot to suggest that the quality is not improving and that, in certain areas, it is perhaps even on the decline. Lack of punctuality and flexibility mean that, directly contrary to all political intentions, freight transport by train is falling behind. The question, then, is: how are we to solve this problem? The Commission’s proposal was too clumsy and out of step with the conditions in a free market. However, Mr Zīle deserves recognition for his attempt to find a solution other than a flat rejection, even if – as I assume it will be when we vote tomorrow – the result is just such a rejection.
I am in no doubt that, as liberalisation and free competition progressively take root, train services will become more efficient and we shall see better value for money and a greater focus on passengers. We shall see better quality than that delivered by the national monopolies, and I find it thought-provoking that the number of passenger miles travelled by train in Great Britain, which has of course done a lot of liberalising over the last ten years, has increased by as much as 40%. I also find it thought-provoking that those countries that invest single-mindedly in modern railway services using high-speed trains also see those services making progress at a time when trains are otherwise losing ground in many countries. Liberalisation is therefore important as well as investment if, regarding not only freight transport but also passenger transport, we are to guarantee railway services an increased market share. It is also important that we speed up the process.
The common framework for the training of train crews is, of course, a logical consequence of the liberalisation that has already been agreed. Mr Savary’s report is therefore the least controversial of those relating to the third railway package. The big debate has of course been about who is to be covered by the Directive on the certification of train crews. Shall it be train drivers only, or other staff too? Shall it be exclusively those involved in international rail services or also those involved in purely national services? My group is generally satisfied with the result we now have. A suitable balance has been found whereby train drivers and other staff directly involved in safety are included. It was a wise decision to have the rules initially cover international train services. Once we have used a cost-benefit analysis in order carefully to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages, we can then, in time, look at whether staff involved in purely national services should be included. Where drivers are concerned, this is, of course, expensive training we are faced with, so it is important that we do not impose unnecessary costs on the train companies.
Last but not least, I want, for my own part, to say how very pleased I am that Parliament’s proposed third railway package welcomes the liberalisation of passenger transport and introduces common rules for passengers’ rights which apply to all passengers and which, in addition, are much simpler and much less bureaucratic than the Commission’s proposal. Mr Savary also asks what is to be done about the small countries. I myself come from a small country in which free competition for railway services has progressively been introduced and in which the national railway company, DSB, is in competition at home and, at the same time, now operates in Sweden and has been given permission to offer routes in Great Britain. DSB has equipped itself for free competition through modernisation and through the reorganisation of its activities so that the old monopolistic and statist culture has been replaced by a modern business culture that places more focus on the passenger. That is the way forward."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples