Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070509.15.3-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commission Vice-President Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, this part-session is very important as regards public local passenger transport. Following seven years’ discussion, we are close to concluding a very important legislative procedure at second reading. The consensus we are about to reach is primarily in the interests of our citizens. We can assure them that they will be able to enjoy attractive, efficient public local passenger transport services in future, too. An integrated range of services with just one ticket and a coordinated timetable is the standard we have set ourselves, and which the public rightly expects.
This has given rise to the question, affecting all of us, as to how – despite the short discussion time – we can reach a consensus during the second reading and thus avoid conciliation? The results of the informal trialogue between Parliament, the Commission and the Council are now before us, and present us with the great opportunity to really arrive at a consensus at second reading.
Right to the end we were still grappling with three political requirements: shortening of transitional periods, further strengthening of SMEs and introduction of a self-provision quota in case of subcontracting to third parties.
Regarding the first of these, our views have come closer together. The transitional period has been reduced from 12 to 10 years, and the deadline for entry into force of the Regulation from three years to 24 months.
We have also reached agreement on the second point. The threshold value for SMEs has been raised slightly. Here, the Council has gone some way towards accommodating Parliament’s demands.
The third point – the so-called ‘self-provision quota’ – remained controversial right to the end. I hope I can say this in the past tense. The views of Parliament and the Council on this important point, the purpose of which is the prevention of social dumping, came into line at the last second. The compromise now reads that, if subcontracting takes place, a substantial part of the services must be performed by the main contractor itself. This affects Amendment 66 to Article 4 and Amendment 67 to Article 5.
I believe that this is a good solution, and am much obliged to all those who contributed to it.
The way has thus been paved for the adoption of the legislation at second reading. If the House votes in favour of the compromise package tomorrow, the Council, too, will give its assent.
This consensus is also in the interests of all public and private transport undertakings, who are to be given a new legal framework at long last, giving them greater legal certainty and thus also planning security for the future. Finally, the consensus is in the interests of the authorities responsible for public local passenger transport, as the new Regulation strengthens local self-administration.
There is another beneficiary, and that is our environment. Attractive, efficient public local passenger transport means a sustainable improvement in the transport situation in our towns and cities, and also in the climate impact on our conurbations.
If the House succeeds in adopting the compromise package by the required majority in tomorrow’s vote, this will represent a great success for us all.
The fact that we are now close to a consensus is thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Meijer, in particular. The Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, Mr Costa, and also the shadow rapporteurs Mr Grosch, Mr Piecyk and Mr Cramer, also made important contributions to the struggle to reach an overall compromise.
As a matter of fact, nothing now stands in the way of a consensus; which is undoubtedly related to the fact that, in its common position adopted in December 2006, the Council had already taken account of a number of amendments by Parliament. These cover the following three points, in particular. Firstly, the increase in the scope for action at local level. The passenger-transport authorities now have the choice between a competitive tendering procedure, the use of their own company to provide transport services, and the direct award of a contract. This fundamental principle has not been further called into question. Secondly, the inclusion of quality and social standards. Here, too, there is agreement that the competent authority must meet its responsibilities. Thirdly, the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to ensure that SMEs will be able to provide their services close to the citizen in future, too, instead of possibly being swallowed up by large international companies.
Particularly helpful as regards the consensus is the fact that we – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – have developed a common basic political understanding of public local passenger transport. This kind of transport cannot be left to the market alone, but rather belongs to the field of services of general interest. For this reason, we need a market organisation that strengthens local decision-making responsibility and guarantees controlled competition. Adequate services of general interest – including in the field of public local passenger transport – are a fundamental precondition for the functioning of the European social model. This also includes social and territorial cohesion in Europe, which cannot be preserved without efficient local passenger transport.
There is also common ground on the issue of the urgent need for legal certainty. Numerous contentious award decisions have shown insufficient clarity in existing law. This will soon change thanks to the new Regulation.
Finally, the new Regulation clarifies the financial relationship between contracting entity and contractor. The party who orders something has to be the one to pay for it. This must not result in either overcompensation or undercompensation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples