Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.8.2-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Meijer, for the work he has done; it has been complex and complicated work on a proposal which has given rise to many amendments and positions. The good work by Mr Meijer, and by all of you, has led to an important debate in Parliament.
Having heard the debate, we accept that emergency situations may arise where it is impossible to organise competition on time and in a manner which allows the service to be maintained. The amendments which deal with this issue are therefore acceptable in principle, although they may require some rewording. We believe that they should be combined in a single emergency clause which also covers other similar circumstances.
The Commission could also accept those amendments which contribute to ensuring that the authorities responsible for compensation have greater flexibility with regard to the general rules laid down for all operators, such as those which establish maximum charges, and which, in some cases, must be applied as appropriate.
Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission can accept the idea of a transitional period which lasts eight years, as proposed in Amendment No 90. However, instead of a ‘big bang’ on that date, we believe that the regulation should lay down a gradual opening up of the market by the authorities, with a first step after four years. It is also acceptable that existing contracts, awarded in accordance with competition, may continue their natural course, provided that their duration is fixed (that is, that they are not indefinite contracts) and reasonable.
However, ladies and gentlemen, there are things which we cannot accept, because they would undermine the aim of the Commission’s proposal. For example, we cannot support the exclusion of complete sectors from the scope of the regulation; we cannot accept Amendments Nos 23, 28 and 128, which would exclude all long-distance services.
It may be that Parliament is in favour of increasing competition in long-distance passenger rail transport, but I would prefer this issue to be dealt with under the second package of rail measures.
The draft report raises legal problems in certain cases. Amendment No 24 would give priority to the regulation over the directives on public contracts. Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission believes that this could lead to the European Union failing to comply with its commitments contained in the World Trade Organisation agreement on public contracts. We cannot therefore accept this amendment either.
The second legal problem relates to reciprocity. The permanent and structural reciprocity clauses are contrary to the non-discrimination requirements laid down in the Treaties. We cannot therefore accept those amendments which simply propose structural reciprocity clauses. However, we believe that, until certain exceptions are incorporated, it is necessary, in a transitional and exceptional fashion, to accept certain types of clause which limit access to a market.
It is important that transition towards controlled competition be accompanied by adequate safeguards, also in the field of social protection, an issue which some of you have mentioned. We cannot therefore accept amendments which would leave the competent authorities without room for manoeuvre in this respect.
I have presented the Commission’s opinion on the majority of the most important issues dealt with in Mr Meijer’s report, but – I am sure you will have noticed – certain crucial issues still remain. For example, the report includes a group of amendments (Amendments Nos 3, 12, 14, 61, 100, 126 and 129) which intend to safeguard the capacity of public operators to continue to exist without their ability to compete and provide services adequately and to the benefit of the citizens being questioned periodically, by means of public tenders.
In legal terms, there is no fundamental problem in relation to the principle that public authorities should decide to provide the transport service themselves. The initiative states that. The main legal problem arises when the public authority continues to deny all the other companies the opportunity to provide those services in the same area, in a situation of transparent and honest competition. We are talking about a certain level of transport, not small-scale transport between two towns, which is excluded from the scope of this directive as a result of the
stipulations, as is stated clearly. We are talking about significant transport markets. We cannot therefore accept those amendments as they are worded. We do not believe that they benefit the citizens, because they go too far, isolating operators from market pressures to maintain and improve the situation. However, we believe that the option of self-production laid down in those amendments could be maintained, with certain strict and clearly established conditions.
In many ways, this debate has helped to generate another broad public debate. The analyses of this subject, both inside and outside the institutions, help the Commission to improve on its own ideas. The debate has demonstrated the controversy surrounding these issues, although there have been times when feelings have obscured the real background to the proposal we are dealing with.
It is clear that this approach should be accompanied by provisions which guarantee that all operators preserve standards of quality and integration, and which ensure that the authorities remain capable of controlling competitions to the benefit of the users of the services.
The final part of Amendment No 112, which proposes the direct allocation of up to 10% of public services to a private sector operator, is also acceptable, provided that the authority cannot invoke this or other exceptions in simultaneous tendering for a single mode of transport.
Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, if Parliament votes for this report in its current form, I fear that the text, the spirit and the objective of the Commission’s proposal will be seriously affected. In this respect, we would have to re-examine the real overall contribution of this modification to Community legislation. The Commission still believes that we must modernise the current regulation (which has existed for several decades), that we must bring things up to date so that public transport may enjoy sufficient legal certainty to guarantee that it is of the highest quality, as competitive as possible, with the best prices and with the legal certainty which will allow public authorities to subsidise and economically support certain routes and certain requirements, such as those of pensioners and other groups, without having to argue this before the courts.
We need efficient public transport, at the service of the citizens, which contributes to rebalancing the transport systems and preventing a future situation of gridlock within the European transport system, which would damage our productive, economic and competitive capacity, job creation and above all the quality of life of our citizens.
Firstly, at the moment there is legal uncertainty in this sector and our intention through this proposal, ladies and gentlemen – we must make this very clear – is to resolve a situation of legal uncertainty which may create serious problems in public transport. The first intention of this initiative, as Mr Jarzembowski has said, is to promote public transport; we all agree that the European Union must promote high-quality public transport at the best possible price.
The Commission believes that many current contracts and agreements, which grant exclusive rights and financial compensation, may be questionable under the Treaty’s competition rules. This is the risk we are dealing with and which this proposal is intended to resolve.
Secondly, while the problem of legal uncertainty is serious enough in itself, it is also clear that regulated competition in public transport must benefit both users and society in general. The facts have demonstrated that systems open to competition controlled and regulated by the public sector have experienced a quicker increase in the number of passengers, during the 90s, than systems which have not been subject to any type of competitive pressure. The reality is that we do not want private monopolies either.
You will understand that it would take hours to present the Commission’s position on each and every one of the 130 amendments which have been tabled on this subject. I am therefore going to comment on the fundamental issues you have raised and, with regard to the specific amendment numbers, the services are at your disposal.
With regard to what we can accept, firstly we are in favour of the proposals intended to reinforce the quality criteria which the authorities must take into account on assessing transport needs and awarding contracts. When the markets open up, the authorities must deal with all issues relating to employment, the environment and consumers, and possibly even more so if the services remain closed to competitive pressures. We must therefore promote the opening up of the market in order to guarantee these levels and standards in terms of employment, the environment and consumers which we all want to see.
Secondly, the Commission can also accept a longer maximum duration for contracts. The periods proposed in Amendments Nos 15 and 54 seem to us acceptable (8 years for buses and 15 years for railways).
Thirdly, with regard to the exceptions to the principle of competition, we can only accept those amendments which do not contradict our initial proposal, and not those which intend to further limit the scope of the regulation. We can also accept those amendments which increase the
thresholds applicable to direct awarding of contracts."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples