Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that the European Union has published a White Paper explaining the need to revitalise rail transport, it is essential to ensure interoperability within the European rail system if it is to be developed. This is crucial to the future of European railways in the twenty-first century. Rail is a more sustainable means of transport, entailing fewer external costs than road transport. It is also more environmentally friendly and safer. Despite all this, rail freight has declined over the last twenty years. It is my view that there are three main reasons for this decline. Firstly, we have industrial strategies favouring road transport and ‘just-in-time’ management, resulting in a greater number of journeys and greater dispersal and fragmentation. Furthermore, there is distortion of competition between road and rail transport. The level of social regulation relating to road transport is notably low when compared to that for rail. I am thinking, in particular, of the fact that the regulation outlined in the Markov report to be discussed this morning does not address the question of a limit on driving time adequately. Despite the fact that Mr Markov and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs proposed reducing driving time to 45 hours, the limit remains at 56 hours, which is clearly still far too long. Lastly, I share the view that the development of different networks according to national specifications has limited trade and has lead to inadequate cooperation and incompatible standards. My report on the high-speed network and the conventional network respectively, therefore seeks to make standards more compatible by bringing the two existing directives into line with each other. The report also includes a series of proposals to speed up harmonisation and to extend its scope. I would like to point out that my report is closely linked to the report on establishing a European Railway Agency. Consequently, a number of decisions on points concerning the Agency are included in my report as they stand in order to ensure that the package is coherent. While preparing my report, I met with operators, experts, the Commission, trade unions and public authorities on many occasions. As a result of the meetings, I identified a number of issues to which I would like to draw your attention. Firstly, in order to achieve interoperability, I think it is absolutely essential to take full account of the skills and know-how of the professionals working within the sector. The European Union must ensure the involvement of the sector if it is to harmonise the rail system. For example, during one of the meetings I had with railway staff, they proposed a recording device. I took this on board, as I believed it to be relevant. The introduction of a recording device now has universal support and is included in my report. Secondly, further to all these meetings, it has become clear to me that harmonisation and safety rules are inextricably linked. Harmonisation in this area cannot be carried out at a minimum level. Safety standards vary across the European Union. Lowering safety standards to facilitate access to infrastructure would be counter-productive and even dangerous. Reducing safety would not be in the interests of harmonisation. One question remains unresolved, namely funding. Enormous investment is needed to achieve this new stage of development. No specific budgetary provision is envisaged, though this is certainly called for. I am delighted that agreement has been reached on Article 29 of the Sterckx report, which promotes social dialogue. I also consider the agreement reached on the Savary report to be very important. This concerns the participation of staff representatives in drawing up technical specifications on interoperability (TSIs) which are of direct concern to them. To ensure consistency between the various reports and the unity of the package, I would like to propose three oral amendments which take account of the agreements reached on the Sterckx and Savary reports. I would also like to propose an amendment on the financial questions. Whilst I am aware that not everyone will share my point of view, I hope you will all understand the importance of the issue. The package as a whole is extremely important, given what is at stake. We bear an enormous responsibility for the future, as we are planning the European rail system for the twenty-first century. I would in addition like to express my opinion on the package as a whole. The Jarzembowski report proposes the complete liberalisation of rail freight services by 2003, and of national passenger services by 2008. I must say that I am concerned about the proposals aimed at speeding up liberalisation, following up those proposed by the Commission. The transposition of the first package is only just taking place in Member States, and an assessment of the consequences has therefore yet to be undertaken. I am still concerned at the conclusions of the Barcelona Council, which sensibly called for a report to be drawn up and an assessment to be made before any new proposal is presented. I agree that we need to revitalise the rail system. It is my view that the harmonisation of standards is a very relevant issue, as is the need for an Agency and strict safety rules. I do not however see why and how it should be deemed necessary to undertake the development of the rail network and opening it up to competition at the same time. The Sterckx report on safety is also very important since, like the Commission, it is concerned in particular about the harmonisation of safety standards. The harmonisation of safety standards should, however, take account of the real situation of the sector, especially as regards implementation time. It would be useless, or even detrimental, to attempt to apply European standards too quickly. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my conviction that both the long-term development and the revitalisation of the sector are at stake. The players in this sector count, be they operators or railway staff. Their skills and knowledge are valuable. The European Union can and must show that it intends to involve them in the development of the rail system. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL