Activities of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2015/2349(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
New opportunities for small transport businesses (A8-0304/2016 - Dominique Riquet) ES
New opportunities for small transport businesses (debate) ES
Amendments (12)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that, in order to respond to the increasing demand for mobility within the constraints of limited infrastructure, all transport undertakings are under pressure to provide sustainable, highly competitive solutions that are environmentally responsible while limiting congestion, but that it is harder for small business to meet these challenges;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the legal uncertainty as to the definition of 'service providers' in the transport sector prevents the establishment of fair competition, and regrets, that being so, the difficulties experienced by many small businesses in accessing the market and offering new services; calls on the Commission to set clear, harmonised criteria to distinguish between services rendered by citizens on an ad hoc basis and those provided professionally.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that one of the main problems affecting new collaborative business models is unfair competition from intermediaries which self-servingly hire workers ostensibly to provide services on an ad hoc basis while having them work continuously as if they were professional staff, thus side-stepping the obligation to provide social contributions, insurance, permits, etc.
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, in a context of growing urbanisation, transport needs to be increasingly integrated and multi-modal in nature, and that urban nodes have an increasingly central role to play in the organisation of mobility; stresses the growing impact of travel planning apps and the importance for small businesses of being included on the list of available apps; considers that consumers can only access the services offered by SMEs if they are among the range of mobility services and portfolios of transport services available.
Amendment 83 #
6a. Notes that in response to economic difficulties and the lack of resources with which to maintain the capillary transport network, numerous branch lines are closing in many regions, especially those most cut-off and most sparsely populated. Takes the view that the advent of collaborative business models can in no way justify abandoning public transport services in these regions.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Notes that new models of collaborative business are profitable and efficient in chiefly urban or densely populated environments, but do not offer viable mobility solutions for rural or sparsely populated areas, which still need the guarantee of a public transport service. Calls on the Commission to take account of the difficulties these models have in penetrating rural and non-urban environments when setting guidelines in this area.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Warns of the danger that intermediation platforms, with their 'winner takes all' ethos, will give rise to monopolies and dominant market positions and harm the diversity of the economic fabric, but also notes that these platforms have brought into play the idea of challenging the existing operators and have led Member States to review the structure of the market;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Highlights the risk of an excessive concentration of intermediaries curtailing the power of SMEs and self-employed people, thus undermining decent working conditions and perhaps jeopardising the safety of the transport service.
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers however that a deregulated sector is not a viable option that would ensure equal treatment and fair competition between operators. Calls, at any rate, for regulation to be favourable to SMEs and collaborative business models and not to undermine high-quality, safe transport services by lowering levels of worker protection.
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view, in view of the development of collaborative business models, that the solution is neither sector- specific regulation nor regulation aimed solely at platforms, and that in future the mobility system needs to be addressed as a whole; calls for the establishment of a modernised regulatory framework that fosters innovation as well as the protection of workers and consumers and their data, and ensures healthy competition;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Wonders whether the exemption granted by many European regulations to light commercial vehicles isand exemptions on the grounds of distance are still justified, given their major expansion in the field of goods transport and the road safety risk this may entail;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for the establishment of cooperation structures between small transport firms and local authorities with a view to improving the organisation of urban mobility; calls on public authorities to include services offered by SMEs, with a focus on urban nodes, among the range of mobility services and portfolios of public transport services available.