Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Meijer, I would like to say in advance that I actually want to say a word of thanks to you, as I know with what commitment you have sought to introduce this subject and how many discussions you have had in order to produce some sort of proposal. I must, though, say on this point that I cannot go along with broad areas of your proposal. There is, in principle, nothing new about what we are discussing today. When, in the summer of 2000, the regulation at last emerged from the Commission, reached Parliament, and then the first discussions were held with trade unions and the representatives of local transport bodies and voluntary organisations, everything was clear: There was to be controlled competition. This had been the aim for years, and now we only had to deal with the questions of how long future contracts should run for and when the regulation was to enter into force, in other words, when would the first tenders actually be invited and the first contracts awarded? There was the additional question of what exceptions there should be to the obligation to put contracts out to tender. All that had its part to play, as did the recurrently raised issue of social dumping, that is, the danger that tenders would lead to the employment of especially cheap labour. We came to a consensus. We wanted controlled competition without privatisation. The two are always confused with one another. Privatisation is not automatically connected with it. All that is involved is that local transport bodies no longer automatically come into the enjoyment of substantial subsidies from regional, national or local funds without having to compete for them, but contracts will now have to be put out to tender. We all know that local transport bodies, who know this themselves, basically offer their product at too high a price. The cause of this is to be found in the fact that it is in the public sector that trade unions have always been very successful in pay negotiations in recent decades. It is a truism, to give just one example, that the personnel costs of private bus companies are some 35-40% lower than in the public sector. Competition also opens up the possibility of us being in a position, in the future, to buy in transport services more cheaply, without a local authority being able to evade its responsibilities in the process. It is not the case that they are being privatised. There will continue to be a State office with responsibility for ensuring that public transport carries on. I can see the opportunity of using the resources saved by buying-in transport at more favourable rates to buy in more transport in the future, thereby making short-distance transport more attractive and achieving all that was said at the outset, namely making transport so attractive, that more people will use it in the future. Let me say that, following these lengthy preliminaries, I think there has almost been a catastrophe, because Mr Meijer was evidently unsure which way he should go, and proposed that, in future, the responsible bodies, whether the regional or local government, should be entitled to decide whether or not to invite tenders. I forecast that if this right to choose, which is to be introduced into the bill by means of Amendment No 61 and Article 7a, becomes reality, there will be no competition, because pressure from the transport companies, trade unions, and associations will be so great as to be irresistible, and contracts will continue to be awarded automatically. Though we can disagree about many details, I therefore beg you, ladies and gentlemen, to seriously reconsider your decision tomorrow and not to vote in favour of Amendment No 61, so that contracts will continue to have to be put out to tender, exceptions being made for rural areas where only small sums are involved, but let us march in the same direction.

Political group: PPE-DE