Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.1.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are indeed some excellent sections in the reports on the development of rail transport we have before us. In particular, Mr Jarzembowski is right to be concerned about the decline of rail transport compared to road and air transport. As regards freight, the Commission has noted that the market share of rail freight transport in Europe has declined from 21% in 1970 to 8% in 1998. During this time, however, the volume of goods requiring transportation has increased considerably and people are travelling ever more frequently.
These developments have had disastrous consequences. This increase in the flow of goods and people has disastrous repercussions for three spheres. There are consequences for the environment as road and air transport cause more pollution than railways. There are consequences in terms of increased traffic as the road network and air corridors are saturated. There are also consequences in terms of personal safety as it is safer to travel by train than by car, given that many tens of thousands of people die in road traffic accidents in Europe every year. The French suffer more than most from these road accidents. The higher road death toll is not down to the French being more reckless behind the wheel than their European neighbours, as the French Government maintains. The explanation lies in the fact that the major trunk routes used by lorries in France linking Mediterranean countries with Northern and Eastern Europe have now reached full capacity. These lorries sometimes hog the carriageway for several kilometres and cause many accidents and traffic-jams. The suffering endured by thousands of drivers who became stuck in their cars in temperatures of as low as -5° during the night from 4 to 5 January was certainly the result of snowfall, but it was mainly caused by the shortcomings of the motorway maintenance services and lorries stuck in the snow on the road.
I do not think, however, that the proposals presented in the reports of our fellow Members, which the Commission supports, address the situation appropriately. In my opinion, France has no need of a European Railway Agency or more European regulation in order to free up its roads. It needs a government that will assume its responsibilities and tackle the causes of the problem. We should ask ourselves why the French Government has failed to follow the example of the Swiss Government on this matter. The government should build a piggyback rail network and oblige all lorries travelling through France to use it. We should ask ourselves why so many French companies transport their products by lorry and not by train, and why millions of French people use their cars rather than using public transport. One reason is that the SNCF is in the grip of the trade unions and is consequently becoming worse and worse at fulfilling its role as a public service. Another is that French people no longer feel safe when using public transport because of security fears and because they are intimidated by the yobs who go on the rampage on it. A third is that the car is one of the few remaining freedoms in an increasingly regulated society.
Our leaders are out of touch with reality. They have official cars and dream of recreating life under Mao. Many Maoists have in fact been reincarnated as environmentalists. Our leaders would like to see us using clapped–out public transport or bicycles, as the people did under Mao, whilst they themselves enjoy the means of transport the people have provided for them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples