Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070509.15.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, public passenger transport is used by millions of citizens, and we hope a few more after tomorrow. The European Parliament, including our group, has not taken this subject lightly. We have been aware of the conflict between tradition and structures of various kinds in many countries on the one hand, and the new challenges of mobility on the other.
There is one point I should like the House to consider. First reading 2001, common position adopted 2006: when discontinuity is discussed in future, the Council will hopefully bear this in mind, otherwise we shall be looking at a generation rather than a parliamentary term for certain dossiers in future.
There is one consolation, however. As I see it, account was taken of many aspects and proposals by Parliament at first reading. Local and regional authorities’ freedom to issue warnings was addressed. It was important to include these emphases there, and to take account of control of internal operators and also, at last, of the principle of reciprocity.
Parliament wanted to emphasise additional important points at second reading. There is one thing I should like to say first of all, and that is that what goes for us should also go for the Council. The good compromise now present must not be allowed to fail for both sides for the sake of one word. However tomorrow’s vote turns out, I am convinced that good sense will prevail, that this is a good compromise whether or not it is amended. We have shortened the transitional periods, and you know why: this has already taken long enough.
We have improved legal protection, we have tried to improve protection of small and medium-sized enterprises. Why is that? It is because they provide services and contribute to the development of economic structures in certain regions, and because they are unable to simply withstand general competition. On the subject of subcontracting, we want to ensure that this does not lead to social dumping and is not used to circumvent the rules on competition.
Those were our objectives. I believe that, with its proposal, Parliament has created legal certainty and found a very good, sensible path between monopolies on the one hand and uncontrolled liberalism on the other. I hope that the three partners will give their assent accordingly tomorrow – and it looks as though they will."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples