Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-277"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.11.2-277"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Environment Commissioner, I am pleased that you are here because we can now address this matter straight away. We are evidently debating a highly technical subject matter, namely the interoperability of both high-speed and conventional rail systems. This gives me the opportunity to make a few comments on the environmental dimension to this proposal. Today, we are essentially witnessing one of many historic moments which those who work in the sector, as well as those who are in favour of trains, have waited for for a long time, because at the end of the day, all this is, of course, meant to culminate in technological harmonisation, which entails the harmonisation of international rail, labour organisations, train drivers who have to make international rail journeys, etc. This also means that employers’ organisations and trade unions will have an entirely different role and outlook with respect to this work.
In short, the proposal has a knock-on effect on many other areas and it will be some time before it is a reality. Certainly if I look at the high-speed link and its technical specifications, I share Mr Savary’s view – who has drawn up an excellent report – that it is scandalous that three, nearly four years after the previous directive on interoperability of the high-speed link, we are still waiting for technical specifications for interoperability. This does not bode well at all for the future.
What we are aiming for in the long run with this rail proposal is to attempt to cut down on traffic jams but also, more importantly, to benefit the environment, safety and a number of other aspects. It has to be said, and I have already mentioned this several times within other fora, that the rail system is gradually losing its environmental edge, not so much because it does not take any initiatives itself, but more so because we ourselves prescribe few, if any, specifications for example, regarding the use of diesel-electric locomotives, the type of electricity used, etc.
What we would like, and this is why we welcome with open arms the dual speed for technical specification requirements, is for this technical specification to at least take account of energy consumption and air pollution, something which will require a great deal of hard work.
The second important point is of course the social dimension, as I touched upon a moment ago. I regret that we are confining ourselves to the bare minimum, i.e. working conditions. We refer to a social dialogue but we should really take it one step further, because this affects the entire labour organisation of railways. I would urge you to look into the positive experiences which certain countries have had in changing the labour organisation of the rail system, in order to bring about a more efficient rail system and to set up exchange programmes, so that we can learn from experiences in countries which have struggled in the past, and which are often still struggling where other elements of the rail dossier are concerned, such as liberalisation or fair pricing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples