Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-140"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, there has been much interference on the line for years where the European requirements with regard to more market forces in local public passenger transport is concerned. Europe was going to make public tendering compulsory, but it never got that far. As many fellow-Members have already said, for no fewer than seven years, people have debated, squabbled and, even worse, occasionally ignored the subject altogether. Few Member States felt like getting their fingers burnt on this issue. The apparently growing legal uncertainty in the sector appeared to make little impression. In order to break the deadlock, the Commission launched a fresh proposal, and with good reason. In recent years, the European market for public passenger transport has changed a great deal in terms of character, and rulings by the Court of Justice have also demonstrated that a new legal framework is simply imperative. From a liberal point of view, the agreement under discussion will not bring universal happiness. The efficiency battle, which can be won precisely by means of market forces, remains underexposed, and in the area of legal certainty, there are definitely a few question marks to be placed. Although I would obviously thank the rapporteur for his commitment, it should be clear that I definitely do not see eye to eye with him where his remarks on market forces are concerned. It is precisely in those cases where market forces have been introduced that more transport, more quality, can be offered at a better price. The figures speak for themselves. Anyway, we cannot turn the clock back now. What is positive about this proposal is that the provision of public transport services and also the underhand award of contracts are subject to strict conditions and criteria in order to prevent distortion of competition. In short, either you are a market player and you compete, or you are a monopolist and limit yourself to your own protecting market. This strikes me as a clear basis to work from for the time being."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph