Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.11.2-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these reports make it quite clear that we are flying the flag for the transfer of traffic from road to rail in vain. If there is no technical follow-up, then our demands will obviously remain a dead letter.
Actual observations today point to the fact that rail in Europe is not matching up to its ambitions and, I would add, it is falling far short of our ambitions. It is true that in a good number of European policies we put forward the need to transfer passenger transport, but most especially freight transport, from road to rail in order, on the one hand, to comply with our international commitments but, on the other hand, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce environmental pollution in general, to relieve congestion on the roads and to reduce the social costs of road transport, which are borne indirectly by the community as a whole.
For all these reasons, none of them new ones, the European Union must make it possible to take up the challenge. In relation to the reports on interoperability it must be noted that the train was not considered to be the transport of the future which was going to provide the solution to a number of problems, particularly environmental problems. In transport policies within the European Union, rail was overlooked.
As evidence of this I would cite the considerable amounts of Structural Fund, trans-European network and Cohesion Fund aid allocated to roads and motorways, which for far too long have had more than their due. Only rarely was there a question of allocating aid to conventional rail systems in order to modernise them and so that they might compete, particularly with heavy goods vehicles on the roads. The declining figures for rail transport, particularly for freight, bear witness to the lack of investment at this level. In the race to develop infrastructures, rail has been the great forgotten area.
Fortunately, there are now crucial studies which make it possible to justify the urgent need and the relevance of investing in rail. Moreover, we would point out that it is essential that the European Parliament should incorporate staff training and health and safety conditions into this directive. Indeed, many of us still remember the conditions in which the transportation of radioactive waste between Germany and France was carried out for many years. Because they did not know about radioactivity, and were not informed about it, some members of staff at the Woippy marshalling yard, in the Lorraine region, used to gather round these heat-generating carriages to keep warm in winter. The chemical containers which we would also like to see transported by rail also require specific training in order to guarantee general safety as well as to prevent exposure and handling which may prove dangerous to the health of the operators involved.
In general, then, we consider this report to be a well-balanced one, and we also wish to congratulate the rapporteur, but we have nonetheless tabled a number of amendments in order to improve it still more. These are to do with taking account of social dialogue, which we deem essential. I would urge you to support the amendments to this effect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples