Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.11.2-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Izquierdo Collado is quite right to recall the obligation of transport policy to contribute to balanced development and to economic and social cohesion. In fact, when thinking about and outlining a transport policy it must be realised that this is a sector of strategic importance and a service of public interest that must serve basic objectives. No less importantly, account must be taken of people’s right to mobility that is safe, affordable and of high quality. Giving priority to modes of transport that are compatible with the environment also warrants our agreement although we must immediately highlight the contradiction between this statement of principle and the way in which the report favours roads.
Nevertheless, I also wish to state that on some fundamental aspects, we are moving far away from the Commission White Paper and also from the report by Mr Izquierdo Collado because the report does not distance itself sufficiently from the White Paper on these aspects. In particular, we do not agree with and even reject the leap forwards represented by the constant support for liberalisation, for opening up the markets in the transport sector, as if this were a panacea that could resolve all the difficult situations that have been building up over the years and which have led to the subordination of public transport to private transport and to the degradation of that service.
To date no study has been produced and no one has been able to prove that opening up transport to competition can resolve the sector’s problems. On the contrary, where liberalisation has taken place, the results prove that exactly the opposite is true. This is why we have these railway and aviation accidents, which are basically caused by the lack of investment in equipment and in safety, or because of redundancies and the deterioration of employees’ social conditions.
Furthermore, the idea that guaranteeing the existence of various operators of these lines or routes leads to an initial situation of apparent openness systematically ends up creating real monopolies. The current discussion with regard to the air transport sector is enlightening on this matter. Finally, I do not think it is acceptable, in the aim of ensuring high-quality and safe transport, for States only to have infra-structures in which they have to invest heavily and that the same States still subsidise – using money from the public purse – companies that will provide services and that these ultimately collect the profits from operating these services. This is certainly a profitable business for these companies. The same is not true, however, for public operators."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples