Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070117.9.3-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this speech celebrates the end of the well-known discrimination against those who used to be Non-attached Members. It is also the first speech on behalf of the new Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Group regarding a tabled report. I shall therefore take this opportunity to point out that several million European citizens are at last no longer just half-represented, and that should be a source of satisfaction to those who claim to be fully democratic and who perhaps, in many EU countries, at least until the fall of the Berlin Wall, were and perhaps still are proud to share their responsibilities, ideals and so on with the Communist International.
Anyway, to return to the subject of our debate on the development of the Community’s railways, we are against liberalisation, not least in view of all the dreadful experiences that have resulted from liberalisation in a number of countries. We cannot therefore support the proposals of the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, on those aspects.
We consider the reciprocity clause to be essential; otherwise liberalisation will not correspond at all to the kind of free competition that ought to favour the consumer. On the subject of passengers’ rights and obligations, our ideas substantially coincide with those of Mr Sterckx: we agree with extending the scope of the regulation on passenger rights to include domestic transport. I am thinking, for example, of how much we need it in my own country, not least because we believe that passengers should not be placed in different categories just because of the rail company they use. Passengers’ dignity and rights should be guaranteed by all services, public or private, that operate within Union territory, and we therefore consider the temporary exemptions provided for in Amendment 22 to be more than sufficient in that respect.
Although the definition of a person with reduced mobility is as broad as it is vague, so much so that it will include several million passengers per day, we agree entirely that rolling stock and stations need to be adapted. Assistance on board trains is also necessary, perhaps by allowing an accompanying person to travel free of charge, and we are therefore in favour of Amendments 47 and 66.
On the other hand, we are against a number of amendments. In particular, we do not think it should be made compulsory to have a special compartment for transporting bicycles and sports equipment on every train, especially without any further specification. We therefore cannot support Amendments 26, 58, 59 or 69.
Lastly, on the subject of licences for rail crews, our group agrees with the approach favouring certification for train drivers, but we are somewhat sceptical about whether it is appropriate to license other crew members as well, as happens in the case of other forms of transport."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples