Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070117.9.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted with the progress made on this third railways package since March 2004. We are talking about a raft of legislative proposals that are technically and legally rather complex. I would also like specifically to thank Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Savary and Mr Stercx, all three of whom have done wonderful work.
I would like, Mr Savary, to express a few reservations with regard to certain amendments relating to the funding of training. You have proposed that a rail company employing a train driver whose training has been totally or partially funded by another rail company, which that driver has left voluntarily after less than five years’ activity, should repay part of the cost of the training to the company that has provided it. We agree in principle, but it is true that the amendment raises problems, legal problems in particular – is that not the case with a more contractual approach? The Commission is wary about involving itself in an area for which we do not really have any factual data; we are not fully aware of the scale of the problem or the possible options for resolving it. Having expressed that reservation, Mr Savary, we agree with this proposal, which has been backed unanimously within the committee.
I shall now turn to the report by Mr Sterckx on international rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The first problem relates to the scope and its extension to domestic services. Mrs Roth has just explained to us that that scope posed certain problems within the Council. I would like to say, however, Mr Sterckx, that I believe that we must accept that it is impossible to distinguish the sections from the different slots, because otherwise users will never know what their rights are, as you have quite rightly pointed out. The Commission will therefore support your amendments and will assist in reaching a compromise with the Council on this point. Furthermore, an approach that leaves more freedom for the Member States for all rail services subject to public service contracts seems logical and should facilitate that compromise.
The other issue is civil liability in the event of accidents. Your desire to establish strict liability for rail companies would bring their liability into line with that of air companies. In that regard, it clearly reflects the Commission's approach, and I can therefore support this ambitious proposal, even though it goes further than the COTIF/CIM regime.
Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, our services will forward you the Commission’s detailed position on each amendment. The Commission will naturally listen carefully to your debate and be at your disposal with regard to any issues that may be raised.
I shall conclude by reiterating what you have said, Minister. I believe that we must all get to work on concluding this third rail package. It would be a real shame to miss this opportunity to re-evaluate Europe's railways. We need the railways so that we can transfer some of the freight to them from the roads. It is essential that this third rail package is not derailed and that it arrives at its destination. I would like to thank you all for the excellent work you have done so far and I promise that I will do everything I can to lead it to a successful conclusion.
Almost three years after the adoption of the initial proposals by the Commission, Parliament and the Council must reach a compromise on all of the texts, as Mrs Roth has just explained very well.
First of all, I would like to stress that, with one exception, the whole legislative package as proposed by the Commission has been maintained by Parliament and the Council. There is a general philosophy underpinning these proposals that will make it possible to Europeanise the railways. I would add that the new proposal on public service obligations has also made good progress, even though it is not on today’s agenda, and I believe that a reading of the third railways package in parallel with this proposal will make it possible to reach an overall compromise at the end of the legislative procedure. Everybody will have to work hard, of course, as you have said, Minister. The Commission is prepared to do so, and your Commissioner will endeavour to play a mediating role.
I would now like to make a few comments on the three reports. I would like firstly to thank Mr Jarzembowski. The Commission is pleased that the Council and Parliament have reached a consensus on the opening up of the market in international services with cabotage, which will take place in 2010, as the Commission proposed.
On the other hand, the opening up of the market in domestic services raises certain problems. In 2004, the Commission was pleased to propose the opening up of the market in international services. On the basis of its analysis, it concluded that the financial and legislative conditions were not in place to justify a broader opening up.
It should be pointed out that the operation of domestic lines, and particularly regional lines in certain European Union countries, is especially problematic and is not yet profitable. It is true, Mr Jarzembowski, that the introduction of more competition in this market is beneficial in terms of increasing the efficiency of operation, but we are forced to achieve it by means of harmonised regulation of public service obligations.
We are not, therefore, in any way opposed to the principle of opening up the market in domestic services, but we believe that, within the framework of this third rail package, there is the risk that a decision would be premature. We would like to assess this issue in the light of a more detailed analysis and we would like to take account of other elements contained in the proposal on public service obligations for which Mr Meijer is rapporteur. That is why we have reservations about the opening up of domestic traffic, Mr Jarzembowski.
On the other hand, I can support a number of Parliament’s amendments to other articles of the text, such as the extension to fifteen years of the period in force of framework agreements for the awarding of services in the case of specialised infrastructures. Furthermore, we are in favour of changing the wording of the article on framework agreements, the clarification of the scope of the levy to be paid for the funding of public services as well as the methods laid down for that purpose, and also the replacement of the concept of economic balance with that of profitability for the analysis of the possible impact of cabotage on an existing public service within the framework of an international service. That is what I wished to say about this first proposal on which Mr Jarzembowski has worked so hard.
The second proposal is that of Mr Savary, which I know has been unanimously supported by the committee. As Mr Savary quite rightly pointed out, this proposal makes it possible to implement human interoperability, which is just as important as the interoperability of equipment. You have restored the scope proposed by the Commission at the outset. In an increasingly open rail network, we feel that it is important to ensure that crew members – who, as you have pointed out, are qualified personnel, responsible for the safety of trains, and not only drivers – are properly trained and in an adequate state of health. I have also taken note of Mrs Roth's comments, but I believe that there is a possibility of reaching an agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples