natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dagens diskussion er derfor velkommen.
Today's debate is therefore very welcome.
Kravet om en effektiv og moderne jernbanetransport i Europa, navnlig godstransport, er faktisk helt reelt.
There is indeed a very real need to revitalise rail transport in Europe, and goods transport in particular.
Denne transportmåde gør det bla. muligt at løse vanskelighederne med hensyn til reduktionen af vejtransportens skadelige virkninger.
Among other things, rail transport can reduce the nuisance caused by road transport.
Men vi må ikke ud af ideologi, jeg tør ikke sige dogmatisme, eller ved overdrivelse fuldstændigt ødelægge jernbane sektoren.
But ideology — I would not go so far as to say dogmatism or excess — must not result in a total disruption of the rail sector.
Jeg tænker især på planerne om liberalisering af denne sektor, som det er foreslået og ønsket af Kommissionen. sionen.
I am thinking in particular of the desire for liberalisation, as proposed or sought by the Commission.
Jeg ved, hvor meget Kommissionen går op i konkurrencens egenskaber.
I am aware of the extent to which the Commission is committed to the virtues of competition.
Men i dette tilfælde vil en alt for hurtig udvikling inden for intermodal konkurrence uden tvivl være skadelig for jernbanesektoren som helhed.
But in this instance, excessive development of intermodal competition would most certainly prove damaging to the rail sector as a whole.
Dette betyder ikke, at man ikke skal gøre noget, at status quo bliver en løsning.
That does not mean that nothing should be done, that the status quo is a solution.
Det er tværtimod godt at forberede jern banesektoren på dens egen fremtid.
On the contrary, we should prepare the rail sector to face its own future.
Derfor kan en eventuel åbning af markedet ske, men det skal ske gradvist og mellem ligeværdige aktører, der kan aftage de samme mængder.
That is why the market may be opened up, but progressively and between equals who must bear the same responsibilities.
Således er bestemmelserne for de autoriserede kandidater, som åbner op for reservering af kapaciteter for de små erhvervsdrivende, en trussel for jernbanetransporten.
The provisions relating to authorised candidates, which provide simple intermediaries with the power to reserve capacities, are a threat to the railways.
De medfører faktisk en diskrimination mellem aktørerne. Jernbaneselskaberne fortsætter med at påtage sig investeringsomkostninger, og ofte fortidens gæld, alt imens de bliver henvist til rollen som underleverandører i forhold til disse nye mæglere, som kan vælge de mest rentable dele af markedet.
They actually introduce discrimination between the players: rail undertakings would continue to bear investment costs, and often the debts of the past, while being relegated to the role of a sub-contractor vis-à-vis these new intermediaries, which would be free to select the most profitable market segments.
Hvis medlemslandene vil give mulighed for reservation af jernbanekapaciteten for andre selskaber end jernbaneselskaberne, må det gøres inden for rammerne af nationallovgivningen.
If the Member States want to allow companies other than rail undertakings to reserve rail capacities, then let them do so by means of their national legislation.
De har ikke behov for tilladelse gennem et direktiv.
They do not need the authorisation of a directive.
Som konklusion vil jeg minde Dem om, at jernbaneselskaberne ikke kun er handelsselskaber, men at de ligeledes udfører en offentlig service, og at de spiller en vigtig rolle i egnsudviklingen.
I would like to end by reminding you that rail undertakings are not just commercial companies. They also fulfil a public service role and play an important part in town and country planning.
Fayot (PSE), skriftlig. — (FR) Alle er i dag enige om, at jernbanerne mere end nogensinde er fremtidens fremgangsmåde for transport af personer og varer over korte og længere afstande.
Fayot (PSE), in writing. — (FR) Everyone today agrees that for transporting people and goods over short and medium distances, the railway is an instrument of the future more than ever before.
Det er derfor, det skal udvikles, moderniseres og tilpasses markedet for at leve op til den meget hårde konkurrence fra vejnettet.
That is why it must be developed, modernised and adapted commercially to stand up to the fierce competition from the road network.
Det er almen viden, at jernbanetransporten og især godstransporten har været i tilbagegang igennem flere år.
The decline of railways over recent years, and goods transport in particular, is very evident.
Derfor har den europæiske politik været at liberalisere jernbanen.
Faced with this situation, European policy has been to liberalise the railways.
Siden starten af 1990 har en række direktiver bidraget hertil.
Since the early 1990s, a whole series of first generation directives have contributed to this.
Blandt disse er alle endnu ikke blevet fuldstændig integreret i lovgivningen i alle medlemslandene.
Some of these have yet to be fully transposed into the legislation of all the Member States.
Før vi fortsætter i denne retning, er det nødvendigt med en statusrapport og en vurdering af beslutningerne om liberalisering og intern omorganisering af de offentlige tjenesteydelser.
Before moving any further in this direction we must therefore take stock of the present situation and assess the effectiveness of the decisions taken to liberalise and internally reorganise public services.
Men Kommissionen vil fremover gå videre med liberaliseringen og åbne fuldt op for konkurrencen for transport af varer med jernbane, mens liberaliseringen indtil nu har været begrænset til kombineret transport.
Yet the Commission is already seeking to take liberalisation even further and to totally open up goods transport by rail to competition, when liberalisation has to date been limited to combined transport.
Ifølge Kommissionen skal logistikvirksomheder ligeledes have adgang til jernbanernes infrastruktur.
The Commission believes that logistics companies should also have access to railway infrastructures.
Naturligvis skal jernbanen gøres mere konkurrencedygtig over for vejnettet.
Railways must clearly be made more competitive in comparison to roads.
Dens overlevelse afhænger heraf.
Their very survival depends on this.
Den fuldstændige åbning af jernbanerne for konkurrence risikerer imidlertid at skade denne offenlige tjenesteydelse, uden at det er taget i betragtning, at systemet til opdeling af kapaciteten af jernbaneinfrastrukturen, der er iværksat af direktiver, er bekostelig og bureaukratisk.
However, to totally open up the railways to competition risks dismantling the public service, not to mention the
Disse direktiver går i den rigtige retning.
These directives are a step in the right direction.
Efter at have liberaliseret flytransporten, gas- og elektricitetsmarkedet kan Den Europæiske Union ikke længere ignorere jernbanerne.
After having liberalised air transport and the gas and electricity market, the European Union could not ignore the railways for much longer.
Jernbanetransport, der er meget brugt i Europa, har i de seneste år været i en alvorlig krise.
Rail transport, which is very frequently used in Europe, has been experiencing a serious crisis for some years.
Efter at forskellige statsindgreb har været forsøgt (nationalisering af jernbaneselskaberne, offentlig statut for personalet, lukkethed i markedet, væsentlige underskud osv.), der viste sig at være katastrofale i samtlige medlemslande, kan fornyelsen på nuværende tidspunkt kun ske ved liberalisering og en tilbage venden til markedskræfterne.
After having tried planned methods — nationalisation of railway undertakings, public status for employees, inflexibility within the market, significant deficits, and so on — which proved catastrophic in the Member States as a whole, the only way to now revitalise the railways is through liberalisation and a return to the market realities.
Nogle medlemsstater har reageret hurtigere på dette end andre, og det er nødvendigt at lade sig inspirere af gode erfaringer fra alle medlemslandene i Den Europæiske Union.
In this respect, some Member States have been able to react quicker than others and we must draw inspiration from the successful experiences in each of the Union's Member States.
De europæiske forbrugere er krævende med hensyn til såvel sikkerhed som kvalitet (forsinkelser, pris, ydelser osv.).
Europe's consumers are demanding when it comes to both safety and also quality, particularly in terms of delays, prices, services, and so on.
Forbrugerne har i de sidste år vendt sig lidt bort fra dette transportmiddel.
Over recent years they have tended to move away from this form of transport.
Det er nu vigtigt at give jernbanerne midlerne til igen at få en stor potentiel kundekreds.
Today we must give rail the means to regain a potentially large customer base.
Jernbanen er fremtidens transportmiddel for transport af passagerer og varer, men det er mere end det.
The railways are a form of transport for the future for passengers and goods. But there is more to it than that.
Jernbanen bidrager faktisk til en vigtig del af egnsudviklingen og spiller en yderst vigtig rolle især i landdistrikterne og indlandsområderne.
Rail transport makes a major contribution to town and country planning and plays a very important role in rural and isolated regions, for example.
Derudover er jernbanerne og især kombineret varetransport i forbindelse med kampen mod luftforureningen et politisk valg, som vi altid har forsvaret.
Moreover, in the fight against air pollution, rail — and the combined transport of goods in particular — is a political choice that we have always defended.
Lienemann (PSE), skriftlig. — (FR) Jeg er imod åbningen af konkurrence inden for jernbanetransport og den decen-, tralisering, som Kommissionen og Rådet foreslår.
Lienemann (PSE), in writing. — (FR) I am opposed to opening up rail transport to competition and to the deregulation proposed by the Commission and the Council.
Amsterdamtraktaten henviser til tjenesteydelser af almen interesse, men i virkeligheden er der ikke noget direktiv, der har angivet rammer for disse eller garanterer logikken i den offentlige service, nemlig på den ene side lige adgang for borgere og områder til infrastrukturer og jernbanens ydelser og på den anden side en tarifmæssig udligning, der garanterer retten til transport og trafik.
The Amsterdam Treaty refers to general interest services but there is in fact no directive that defines its framework or guarantees the logic of public service, namely, equal access by people and territories to rail transport infrastructures and services on the one hand, and the adjustment of costs that guarantees the right to transport and movement on the other.
I mangel af en sådan ramme er en liberalisering, selvom den sker gradvis, farlig.
In the absence of such a framework, liberalisation is dangerous even if it is gradual.
Den vil øge ulighederne mellem regionerne og mellem borgerne i Unionen, ødelægge de offentlige tjenesteydelser, og den vil i de fleste tilfælde også efterfølges af en social tilbagegang for de berørte arbejdere.
It will increase the inequalities between the regions and the people of Europe, dismantle public services and, in most cases, be accompanied by a deterioration of social conditions for the workers in question.
De europæiske fagforeninger inden for jernbanetransport har med rette givet deres utilfredshed til kende om dette projekt.
Europe's trade unions representing the rail transport sector were right to express their opposition to this plan.
Desværre er der på områder, der har oplevet liberaliseringen, sket en reducering i antallet af udbudte tjenesteydelser for brugerne, især der hvor der i forvejen ikke har været mange.
Unfortunately, the areas that have already been liberalised have experienced a deterioration in the service to users, particularly the more modest of them.
Derfor stemmer jeg imod betænkningerne af Sarlis og Swoboda og de tilhørende direktivforslag.
I will be voting against the Sarlis and Swoboda reports and the related proposals for a directive.
Lindholm (V), skriftlig. — (SV) Der er allerede sket en vis liberalisering af jernbanesektoren. Nogen egentlig evaluering har man derimod ikke foretaget.
Lindholm (V), in writing. — (SV) Some liberalisation of the rail sector has already taken place, but without any proper evaluation exercise having been carried out.
Vi ved dog, at erfaringerne i mange henseender ikke er specielt positive.
Nevertheless, we know that in many cases the experience has not been especially encouraging.
Inden man tager yderligere skridt, må man tage hensyn til erfaringerne og de langsigtede konsekvenser af de eksisterende direktiver.
Before any further steps are taken, the long-term implications of directives that are now in force and the effects they have produced must be considered.
Porto (PPE), skriftlig. — (FT) Selvom man ikke drager konkurrenceprincippet i tvivl, hvad angår private firmaers brug af jernbaneinfrastrukturen, må man realistisk erkende, at der ud over en principiel enighed heri må være attraktive betingelser til stede for en forretningsmæssig udnyttelse af disse tjenester.
Porto (PPE), in writing. — (FT) Without questioning the philosophy of free enterprise in the use of rail infrastructures, we have to be realistic and realise that while agreeing in principle, it is vital to have attractive conditions for the exploitation of those services.
En første betingelse er således, at der forefindes en moderne infrastruktur, hvor man kun kan forvente sig lidt eller slet intet i et land, der som mit eget gennem årtier ikke har troet på togtransport, men har befordret en særdeles alvorlig uligevægt til fordel for vejtransporten.
That being so, the sine qua non for those attractive conditions to exist must be modern infrastructures, and these can hardly be expected to exist in a country like mine where, for decades, nobody believed in trains and road transport won a huge advantage.
Jernbanerne må herudover ses i snæver forbindelse med andre transportformer, fordi der kun på den måde kan sikres brugerne tilfredsstillende tjenesteydelser og en for alle disse maksimal lønsomhed.
The railways have to be seen as a means of transport that is closely linked to others, since that is the only way to guarantee users satisfactory services and to ensure that all means of transport achieve maximum profitability.
Meget relevant og aktuelt er det således helt ubegribeligt, at en ny lufthavn ikke betjenes af en direkte jernbanelinje, men at adgangen for mere end 10 millioner passagerer skal foregå udelukkende pr. vej.
For example, to take an issue in the news at the moment, it is inconceivable that a new airport is being built that will not be served directly by a major rail link, thus, incredibly, making access for over 10 million passengers a year possible only by road.
Men væsentligt er ikke kun, om der findes jernbanelinjer, eventuelt moderne, eftersom det er helt afgørende, at der er hyppige forbindelser, hvilket kun lader sig gøre for tog mellem store befolkningscentre med adskillige millioner indbyggere.
But what is at stake here is not only the existence of railway lines, however modern. It is equally vital to have a regular rail service, one that can only be provided by intercity rail links linking conurbations that have several million inhabitants.
Hvis dette ikke er tilfældet, hvis der omkring lufthavnen kun er et tyndt befolket opland, havner man uundgåeligt i en ond cirkel, hvor der kun er få tog, fordi efterspørgselen er beskeden (kun eller næsten kun fra luft havnen), og hvor man i stadig mindre omfang benytter jernbaneforbindelsen, fordi der er så få tog (ingen vil vente en time på et tog efter halvanden times flyvetur...).
Otherwise, in the case of a thinly populated hinterland near an airport, we inevitably fall into the vicious circle of laying on fewer trains because of the lack of demand (only or nearly only airport users), which
Reding (PPE), skriftlig. — (DE) De tre betænkninger, som der stemmes om på plenarmødet i denne uge, skal skabe forudsætninger for, at jernbanen kan køre ind i det næste årtusinde som et interessant og succesrigt transport middel.
Reding (PPE), in writing. — (DE) The three reports being put to the vote this week in the plenary should make it possible for the railways to enter the next millennium as a popular and successful means of transport.
Jernbanen er et miljøvenligt og fremtidigt transportsystem for gods og personer, hvis potentiale i dag ikke udnyttes tilstrækkeligt.
The railways are an environmentally friendly transport system for goods and passengers which have a promising future, but whose potential is not being exploited adequately at present.
For at dette potentiale på kort sigt kan udnyttes fuldt ud, skal der nu sættes vidtgående reformer i gang.
For it to be possible to take full advantage of this potential in the short term, far-reaching reforms need to be set in motion today.
Vi kommer ikke uden om en delvis liberalisering af jernbanesektoren.
There is no avoiding partial liberalisation in the railway sector.
Men for det første er liberalisering ikke lig med privatisering, og for det andet skal denne delvise liberalisering indføres trinvist og under hensyntagen til de sociale aspekter.
Firstly, however, liberalisation is not the same as privatisation and, secondly, this partial liberalisation will be introduced progressively and with due consideration of the social aspects.
Dermed skabes der forudsætninger for at udvikle jernbanen til et effektivt, pålideligt transport middel, der hører fremtiden til — også i Luxembourg, i Europas centrum.
In this way, the ground will be prepared for developing the railways into an efficient and reliable mode of transport for the future — not least in Luxembourg, in the centre of Europe.
Man må ikke nære illusioner. Det drejer sig om jernbanens overlevelse.
Make no mistake: this is about the survival of the railways.
Der skal handles nu.
Action is needed now.
Schlechter (PSE), skriftlig. — (DE) Vi har diskuteret tre udkast til en fortsat vej mod en liberaliseret jernbanedrift.
Schlechter (PSE), in writing. — (DE) We have discussed three proposals for moving towards a liberalised rail system.
Selvom også jeg mener, at der ikke mere er nogen vej tilbage til tidligere tiders jernbanepolitik, gribes jeg som politiker og fagforeningsmand af en vis angst for fremtiden, når jeg må tage de forskellige argumenter til efterretning, som skal føre til denne udvidede liberalisering.
Although I too believe that going back to the railway policies of the past is no longer an option, as a politician and trade unionist the various strategies for moving towards greater liberalisation fill me with fear for the future.
Her bliver jo adskillige ting slået i stykker, som har udviklet sig gennem hundrede år, og man må jo stille sig det spørgsmål, om Kommissionens politik er den rigtige, når den i alle sine bestræbelser kun ser den rigtige medicin i en liberalisering af den nationale og internationale drift. Det bedste eksempel på, hvor denne politik fører hen, ser man nemlig i jernbanedriften i et højt udviklet land som Tyskland.
After all, the heritage of a hundred years is being broken into pieces here, and we do need to ask ourselves whether the Commission's policy — which always sees the liberalisation of the national and international economy as the only answer — is the right one, because where this policy leads is best illustrated by the example of a country with a highly developed rail system, such as Germany.
Rækken af togulykker vil simpelthen ikke stoppe, og det viser sig dér, at det kan blive ganske dyrt at spare på de forkerte steder, og endnu værre, at de personalebesparelser, som tvangsmæssigt gennemføres af jernbaneselskaberne, sker på bekostning af sikkerheden.
There is simply no end to the series of train accidents there; this shows that making savings in the wrong place can be rather expensive and, even worse, that the staffing cuts which the railway companies have been forced to make are being made at the expense of safety.
Selvom Luxembourg har været et af de lande, der har lidt mest under indskrænkningen af jernbanetransporten, har det holdt fast ved sin jernbane, moderniseret den, givet den en slankekur med hensyn til beskæftigede, som er enestående i Europa, og alligevel har man passet på, at der ikke opstod sociale belastninger. Skal det nu altsammen være forgæves?
Although Luxembourg was one of the countries which had the most to lose from a decline in rail traffic, it has held on to its railways, modernised them and downsized, in the only operation of its kind in Europe, and yet at the same time care was taken to ensure that no social hardship was suffered.
Med rette kan man stille sig det spørgsmål, hvorfor direktiver som direktiv 91/440, som ikke engang er gennemført i alle lande endnu, nu i al hast skal ændres og piskes gennem Parlamentet og Ministerrådet, og hvorfor man ikke har gennemprøvet det i en længere løbetid.
We are right to ask why directives such as Directive 91/440, which has not even been transposed in all the countries yet, should now be hastily amended and whipped through Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and why they have not been given a longer trial.
I det hele taget forekommer det mig, at Kommissionen her igen forfalder til perfektionisme.
In general, it seems to me that the Commission has once again been too perfectionist.
Hvorfor en særskilt regnskabsføring for varetransport og persontransport?
What is the point of having separate accounts for freight and passenger transport?
I stedet for at forenkle dyrker man her igen kontornusseriet.
Instead of simplifying matters, this is once again increasing bureaucracy.
Der tales ganske vist om en uafhængig ledelse af jernbaneselskaber, om gældseftergivelse og forbedret finansadministration, men samtidig forpligtes regeringerne til at sikre de internationale grupperinger adgangsrettigheder i den grænseoverskridende jernbanetrafik.
It is true that there are proposals on the independent management of railway undertakings, on debt remission and the improved management of public finances, but at the same time the governments are reminded of their duty to guarantee access rights to international groupings for international rail transport.
Hertil kommer endvidere, at Kommissionen allerede nu, hvor diskussionen ikke engang er afsluttet endnu, opfordres til at tage affære, også hvad kanalpriser angår.
On top of this, even at this early stage when the discussions have not even been concluded, the Commission is also being asked to take action on route pricing.
Betyder det, at kanalpriserne gennem Luxembourg i en ikke alt for fjern fremtid skal beregnes på basis af den billigste udbyder?
Does that mean that in the not too distant future, prices on routes through Luxembourg are to be calculated on the basis of the cheapest supplier?
Fagforeningerne kan i så fald se frem til nogle kønne lønforhandlinger.
If so, then some interesting pay negotiations are in store for the unions.
For tiden forekommer det umuligt at vurdere, hvordan de nye foranstaltninger vil virke.
At present, the impact of the new measures seems impossible to assess.
Men alene ønsket om at udnytte infrastrukturen optimalt er ikke tilstrækkeligt til, at der også sker forbedringer.
But a desire to ensure optimal infrastructure use is not, on its own, sufficient to yield improvements.
Det bedste eksempel herpå er de »Free Ways«, som blev præsenteret med stor pomp.
The best example of this are the 'freeways', which were announced with great ceremony.
På store landkort blev der præsenteret 25 sådanne linjer, men kun syv er i drift.
Large maps were unveiled showing 25 of these lines, only seven of which are in operation, however.
Og det endda kun, fordi det mindste jernbaneselskab, nemlig det luxembourgske, satte hele sin diplomatiske snilde ind i dette bureau unique.
And that too is only because the smallest railway company, the Luxembourg one, brought all its diplomatic skill to bear in the 'bureau unique'.
Her har de forskellige jernbaneselskaber ved et forbilledligt samarbejde bevist, at de kan bevirke noget på tværs af grænserne.
The various railway companies have proved here by their exemplary cooperation that they can achieve something across borders.