Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.8.2-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, many private companies have withdrawn from public transport since it became permanently loss-making as a result of the large-scale distribution of the car. Public transport is necessary for access, the environment and for reducing the pressure on public space and cannot survive without extensive government funding. Like education and welfare provisions, public transport is more a core task of the government than it is part of the market. Unfortunately, this Regulation has been preceded for some years now by a rumour in a number of Member States that the EU is committed to privatisation and competition.
When I was appointed rapporteur a year ago, I was put under pressure to have the report ready for first reading in the first half of 2001 during the Swedish Presidency of the Council. Had I succumbed to that pressure, it would have been impossible to have more than one hundred investigative interviews with organisations, including national associations of municipalities, trade unions and different types of transport companies. I gleaned very opposing interests and views from these conversations.
Public transport is regulated very differently in each Member State and in each of its regions. Much community funding has gone into buying up old private companies that failed to offer adequate public transport, particularly in densely populated urban areas and for rail connections. This is in contrast to many small bus companies operating a few bus services in thinly populated areas that have now been bought by large, fast-growing bus companies operating in different States. If the European Commission is of the opinion that the award of contracts for transport areas to such companies should not be based on nepotism or judicial verdicts but rather, on objective standards and openness, then this Parliament shares this point of view, and so does the rapporteur. In this way, the Commission helps those areas where the municipal or regional governments would like to contract out their public transport apply useful rules so as to be able to choose between a few large companies, such Arriva, Vivendi or Deutsche Bahn.
Unfortunately, the Commission proposal applies the same obligation to contract out to areas which, based on practical experience, prefer the sustainable existence of one of the country’s own public companies or the continuation of a long-term contract with a small, private company. Precisely this restriction of freedom of choice makes the Commission proposal extremely controversial. It particularly affects countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Austria. But also in the Netherlands, which led the way in privatisation and liberalisation, the disadvantages of a disorganised rail company and of delayed growth in public transport in densely populated areas are now emerging.
The rule that applies to every government is that it is appreciated by the people if it helps solve problems and maligned if it creates unnecessary problems. European legislation can be useful if it makes a vital contribution to solving our joint and cross-border problems. Far-reaching, centralistic intervention in municipal and regional policy certainly forms no part of this. No one will be satisfied if such intervention soon appears to result in fewer public services, higher consumer prices, worse working conditions, fewer new tram lines, the termination of free urban transport, the supremacy of a monopoly and the erosion of democratic participation. The compulsory introduction of competition in this case does not mean the emergence of an ordinary market; instead it means promoting a battle for securing government subsidies for permanently loss-making businesses that want to take over government tasks.
According to many experts, the introduction of an obligation to tender for passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterways goes beyond the powers of the European Union. On account of this obligation, the importance of providing public services and the well being of the user are being subordinated to attempts to cut down on labour costs. If this proposal for a regulation were to be accepted unamended, it would spell doom for small companies, including virtually all public companies. Although the municipal tram company or the local bus company can also take part in the tender, these companies will go under as soon as they lose the tender at some point in the future. Only large, cash-rich companies with many diverse transport areas can survive such a system in a sustainable manner. It is exactly this crucial aspect of the tender obligation pertaining to all public transport that attracts criticism. On 10 October, it appeared that the majority of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had accepted the gist of what I had proposed or what Mr Piecyk and others had developed by way of alternatives on the back of my proposal. Tram, underground and short bus services remain outside the obligation, while employment and the environment are better protected. If the plenary follows the same line of thinking, we could save ourselves a great deal of upheaval and bother."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples