Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.7.3-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The proposal clearly states that its aim is to develop competition in the field of transport provision. Contrary to what it states in several places, everything shows that within the framework of so-called ‘regulated’ competition, the results of opening up the market have not been positive, and nor has the efficiency of services improved. Quite the opposite.
The overall process of liberalisation runs counter to improving the service for passengers, to improving working conditions, to respect for the environment, traffic safety and a regional planning policy that is not imposed by market restrictions.
We are stating our opposition to any liberalisation of transport, and our support for maintaining the status of transport as a public service, and for cooperation between public companies at European level. We are against any State aid being allocated to private operators who are not, moreover, prepared to make the necessary investment in infrastructures.
What is more, we are in favour of the immediate re-nationalisation of all the private railway lines and networks in Europe and in favour of the re-nationalisation/municipalisation of urban and local transport. The underlying problem is that it is impossible to compromise with market logic. When it is applied, it is to the detriment of another logic, that of public service, which explains why we have voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples