Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.22.2-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I agree with what you have just said. We have indeed chosen the third railway package as a basis for a subsidiarity test, in other words for the way in which the legislation is applied by national parliaments. That shows the importance we attach to this text.
There are, however, some amendments that pose certain difficulties, such as in the case of finance for training or the obligation to offer refunds in certain instances. These give rise to certain reservations on our part because they impinge on labour law, the flexibility of the market and the right to mobility. This also applies to the possibility of a temporary dispensation for domestic drivers. Your committee proposes that Member States should be able to temporarily disregard the rules applicable to domestic drivers. In the eyes of the Commission, allowing such dispensations for whole countries poses some real questions and that is why it is not in favour of it. In social terms, we shall have two classes of driver, when, in practice, the categories are not distinct. That runs the risk of creating career problems. Moreover, in economic terms, States will be obliged to maintain two different sets of legislation, two systems for accreditation and for recognition of trainers. In short, one wonders whether this duality will not give rise to additional costs. All that, Mr Savary, does not in any way detract from the quality of the work accomplished.
There are also provisions that apply to other staff, which seems to me legitimate. These concern train staff who are not drivers but who are involved in tasks relating to railway transport. In spirit your proposal is in line with that of the Commission. It is necessary only to make sure that the ‘comitology’ annex is well defined in order to avoid any legal problems.
Next there is the problem of drivers failing to respect certain conditions once the basic licence and the harmonised complementary certificate have been obtained. There are, no doubt, certain rewordings that would be desirable in order to take proper account of the rights and duties of drivers, of employers and of the competent authority.
Finally, there is the problem of periodic checks. The Commission proposes referring to the safety management systems that each railway undertaking has to put in place. In this matter it is necessary to find a balance between the requirements that need to be included in the main body of the legislation and those that need to be in an annex. I am sorry, Mr President, at this late hour, to bring into the debate a number of very technical points, but that is due to the quality of the work of the Committee on Transport. That is what I have to say, then, about this text on drivers’ licences, which, I have noticed this evening, has received Parliament’s very broad agreement.
I come now to the third report which concerns the proposal to open up the market for international rail passenger services. The Commission appreciates Mr Jarzembowski’s report and supports the idea, which several Members have mentioned, of linking this proposal to our amended proposal on public services in land transport. Nonetheless, Mr Jarzembowski, we have reservations about the amendments that involve bringing forward the date for opening up international passenger services from 2010 to 2008.
The Commission is of the opinion that 2010 is a more appropriate date because it is only on that date that most of the required institutional and procedural framework will be in place and properly operational. There are the national safety authorities and the rail regulators and there is the work of the European Railway Agency. In addition, most of the planned international high-speed lines will not be completed until 2010 and it is on these infrastructures that international passenger traffic will be concentrated in the future.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot support opening up the domestic passenger market in 2012. This proposal seems to us premature and difficult to realise given its great sensitivity. The Commission also has difficulty in accepting the amendment that introduces the potential for Member States to anticipate the opening of their market on condition of a reciprocity clause, because such clauses run the risk of being discriminatory on grounds of nationality.
Be that as it may, the Commission is pleased with Mr Jarzembowski’s report. We can accept the amendments it contains subject to certain alterations to the wording. I am thinking more precisely of the extension of the standard term for framework agreements for the use of the railway infrastructure or the clarification of the conditions under which the rights of an open access operator might be limited if they come into conflict with rights resulting from a public service contract. This is a balanced approach and it respects different national situations. That is what I wanted to say about this proposal for a directive.
I now come to Mr Sterckx’s report on the regulation on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations. Since March 2004, the debate on passengers’ rights has made much progress within our institutions. Within the Council, an in-depth discussion is about to come to a conclusion. The regulation on the civil responsibility of rail companies, incorporated into the new COTIF-CIV agreement of 1999, should finally come into force before the end of the year.
Mr Sterckx, I should like once again to express to you my gratitude for the work you have accomplished. Your concern has been to seek to widen the scope of the regulation and you have proposed extending it to cover national services also. I fear, however, that it is not possible to achieve this extension immediately. I should like to commit myself to a more in-depth study of this question. We could then return to it at a later stage in the light of the experience acquired by virtue of the application of the regulation on international travel.
First of all I shall say a word of thanks to all the speakers to whom I have listened carefully. Nonetheless, you will allow me to give thanks to our rapporteurs in particular. I noted, in what Mr Savary said, that his report sends a strong signal and contains a fine example of bilateral agreements between branches. I noted also, from Mr Sterckx, the idea that passenger rights are likely to promote confidence in the railways among users. I thank Mr Zīle for having sought an acceptable compromise and I would like to say to Mr. Jarzembowski that I appreciated his insistence on the fact that opening up to competition should facilitate transfer from road to rail, since that is indeed what we also wish to achieve.
The second point of your report is the application of the COTIF-CIV international framework in relation to civil responsibility. The Commission is inclined to respond favourably to your requests. Nonetheless, the regulation of responsibility as defined by COTIF-CIV does not appear to strengthen the position of passengers in the event of an accident, or, at least, not as much as the Commission would have wished.
Finally, I shall confine myself to two key points for which the Commission would like your support. First of all, the obligation to provide passengers with the information they need. Mr President, you have illustrated it with the example of integrated tickets over the whole European network. The impact analysis on the consequences of opening up the international passenger service market shows that its success depends very much on efficient access to information and tickets. European rail passengers must have the right and the possibility of travelling with a ticket that allows them to cross several borders within the European Union. For this right to be truly effective, rail companies, including those that are in competition with each other, must cooperate.
Secondly, as regards the regulations for civil responsibility in the event of accident, there is no doubt that there must be compulsory insurance. Making a requirement for minimal cover will ensure fair compensation for passengers in the event of an accident while at the same time keeping a level playing field for rail companies who are facing financial difficulties. Anyway, Mr Sterckx, thank you for what you have done for passengers with reduced mobility. It is of great importance to me personally. What I can tell you is that if, as I hope, Parliament and the Council accept this proposal, I shall make it my personal responsibility to see to its effective application, because I believe that it is an essential point in terms of giving railways the image of quality that they must acquire.
So, Mr President, I hope very much that, improved and enriched in this way by Parliament, these texts will also meet the approval of the Council. I should like, once more, to thank Parliament. We are at a double turning point. We are well aware that, for the sake of the environment, but also for the sake of saving energy and because of the risk of congestion on our motorways and roads in Europe, we must encourage this modal transfer, more precisely, this combination between different modes of transport, given that travel by rail, by river and by sea are, without doubt, good options for long distance traffic.
Moreover, I have heard several Members of Parliament speak about subsidiarity and we are in agreement. There are things that should remain within the field of competence of national governments. Indeed, it is for this reason that we are going to carry out this subsidiarity test. As regards railways, however, ladies and gentlemen, we have come a long way. It used to be very much a national, not to say nationalist, area and that prevented the railway from taking its proper place in a Europe that now needs mobility across all our different Member States.
In this respect, progress had to be made and I am very grateful to Parliament for having allowed us, together, not to reduce the competence of the Union’s Member States, but to show that, in this domain and in the domain of rail transport, the European Union and the drafting of a policy at a European level truly brings added value. That is why I warmly thank Parliament and the Committee on Transport for having carried out this in-depth work which will be particularly useful for us in the days to come.
I shall try to reply, Mr President, without going into all the details. First, since I have been asked the question, I should like to remind you that the first railway package has been transposed by all the Member States except two for certain directives. Moreover, the Commission has started infringement proceedings in respect of the two Member States concerned. For the second package, the Commission is following very closely the process of transposition into national law. I would remind you that May 2006 has been set as the date for transposition, except for the opening up of the domestic freight transport market where the date fixed is the end of December 2005.
Having made these points, I am going to try, without going into all the details, to give you an idea of the Commission’s opinion on the work of Parliament and of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I thank the Chairman, Mr Costa, and the members of the Committee on Transport for the thorough work they have done. The purpose of a package is to make it possible to place the different texts in relation to each other in order to achieve a balanced, global reform that allows both an opening up of markets, which is beneficial for consumers, and the establishment of a regulatory framework that ensures the safety and rights of citizens. I believe that it is all of this, both the opening up to competition and the regulatory framework, that will allow us to reverse the trend so that it favours railways, as Mr Costa has stressed.
Most of the proposed amendments improve the quality of the legislative proposals. Certain amendments pose a few problems. I am nonetheless convinced that we shall find practical solutions to those questions in the course of the legislative process.
First, I shall begin with the proposal for a regulation on the quality of freight. Obviously the Commission will examine carefully the final position of Parliament and of the Council in order to determine the implications. I must stress, however, the importance of this text because one has to admit that the situation in the rail freight transport sector has scarcely progressed since the Commission’s proposal in March 2004. Thus it is that the punctuality of international combined rail and road transport remains unsatisfactory: 35% of trains are late in 2005. Furthermore, according to the European rail sector, in conventional rail transport, less than one contract in three contains a quality clause that provides for compensation in the event of delays.
From many quarters we have heard the question: why has the Commission proposed this piece of legislation on the quality of freight? The mere fact of having posed the problem has already had a positive effect on the sector. Over the last few months, we have witnessed the negotiation of framework agreements between user groups and certain rail undertakings. These negotiations have focussed on commitments to quality. Of course, I shall take note of what Parliament and the Council decide and, if they confirm their opposition to the choice of legislative instrument, it will be necessary to ask the people involved to find other ways and means of achieving the objective shared by the three institutions: that is, the improvement of the quality of international rail freight transport services by rail. This is the way in which we shall achieve a transfer from road to rail. That is the first point and, again, I thank Mr Zīle.
As regards the other proposals, here, in broad outline, is the position of the Commission and, Mr President, I am communicating the detailed positions on each amendment to the Presidency.
I shall now come to Mr Savary’s report on the directive on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains. Most of the amendments seem to us to be moving in the right direction. They are evidence, I say quite simply, of high quality work. This directive sends a social signal enabling all rail transport personnel to feel involved in the regeneration of this means of transport."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples