Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, an entire programme of parliamentary and institutional work on railways is now drawing to a close. The railways represent a tremendous challenge for Europe and for the future. The report on interoperability seeks to make the directives on high-speed and conventional rail systems more consistent. Significantly, it also proposes greater harmonisation. This is a way in which the Union can benefit the railways, enabling trains to move freely across the European network. The decision to tackle the issue of rail was made on the basis of the ongoing decline of rail as a means of transport in Europe. Consequently, the proposals contained in my report seek to support the development of the railways. Rail is a sustainable and safe means of transport. In addition, it places different areas on an equal footing. Both at a European level and at the level of each Member State, public authorities should take resolute action on railways. They need it. The reasons for the decline of the railways are many and serious. Moreover, some of these reasons are not related to the aim of my report. One such reason is the failure to take account of the environmental costs of road transport, which is the main competitor of rail transport. The decline of the railways is also linked to problems concerning finance. On this issue, I am bound to refer back to what I said previously and I can only reiterate that this aspect is far from satisfactory. The time will come when it will be necessary to make available means that match our stated ambitions. I would now like to turn to the recommendation for second reading of my report. Although there was general agreement on the common position, my report includes the proposals made by the relevant parliamentary committee at first reading. This is progress. I would like to cite two examples. First, there is the proposal seeking to equip trains with recording devices. With satellite control, these devices will greatly enhance the flow of rail traffic by monitoring changes in real time. They will also increase safety. Rail employees put this proposal to me at the very beginning of the first reading and it has now been accepted by the Council. In my opinion, this is a good example of how we can improve parliamentary work by taking the time to debate issues with the main parties involved and to listen to them. Ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to draw your attention to the amendment seeking to replace the phrase ‘minimum level of safety’ with ‘optimum level’. It was important to eliminate any ambiguity concerning the possibility of a ‘levelling down’ type of harmonisation. Allowing safety standards to differ between Member States might suggest that harmonisation could be used to reduce safety standards so as to facilitate access for new entrants. On the contrary, it is essential to ensure that all rail users respect the complete set of standards guaranteeing better safety. I would now like to turn to the other reports on the rail package. I support the proposals of my fellow Member Mr Savary on a European Railway Agency. I think the proposals for each and every one of the players to be represented on the Administrative Board of the agency are essential to progress. I believe it is very important for rail employees and their organisations to contribute to the process of drawing up the technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs). I agree with a number of the proposals made by Mr Sterckx on safety. I believe each Member State’s particular situation and know-how must be taken into account. In addition, however, I feel it is important to allow sufficient time. For historic reasons, our rail networks are extremely complex. Effective change must take account of the human factor. I would also like to highlight the issue of national standards. It is essential for Member States to retain the right and the ability to improve their safety conditions and systems. If this right were removed, there would be a serious risk of them all being reduced to the lowest common denominator when the aim should be to help all networks increase their safety levels. Lastly, our rapporteur will understand that I do not agree with amending our objectives, including opening up the sector to competition and considering this action to be as important as safety. Everyone has their own opinion on opening up the sector to competition. We happen not to agree on the subject. It is, however, a shame to make a hotchpotch in a directive that has harmonisation and improvement of safety as its main objective. As for Mr Jarzembowski’s report, I have to say that I do not share his desire for liberalisation. We have only just begun on the process of transposing the previous directive and an assessment of its impact is required. The rail sector is of such social and economic importance that the precautionary principle must be applied. No one would want the European rail system to experience the same mishaps, not to mention disasters, which have befallen certain other networks. Liberalisation at any cost implies certain theoretical assumptions. This can prove dangerous and has been shown to have disastrous consequences for the railways, employment and the social and economic situation. These are the grounds on which we rejected the proposals to accelerate the opening up of both the national and international freight sector, proposals which unfortunately were accepted by the Council. Since we rejected these proposals, it follows that we cannot support Parliament’s bid to liberalise passenger transport if the report is accepted. All, or almost all, of the main players in the sector are united in their opposition to this plan. This support for liberalisation is all the more surprising given that the attempts to establish freight corridors have not yet borne fruit save in the context of cooperation. Europe needs to learn from experience. It also needs a public rail service it can be proud of. In our opinion, this is what is at stake. Lastly, while I agree with Mr Jarzembowski’s idea that the rail package constitutes a whole, and while we all agree on promoting rail transport, and moving forward in this direction, I do not think this necessarily entails liberalisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL