Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-19-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021219.2.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Reding's task today is a difficult one, to make a statement on the Commission's behalf on action that the Commission has been putting off for a year. It is the case that, thirteen months ago, Parliament delivered its opinion on services of general interest by a well-supported vote, with 435 votes being cast in the final vote. Since then, the Commission has done little. It has submitted four documents. The latter two of these, submitted before the Copenhagen Summit, just as the submission of the others six months ago preceded that in Seville, say nothing more than that rulings are awaited from the European Court of Justice. I do not at all understand, Commissioner, why the Commission does not have its proposals debated here in Parliament, openly and with no holds barred. If, as in this case, you gaze fixedly at the European Court of Justice in the same way that a rabbit gazes fixedly at a snake, you are not acting as if all options were available to you.
Although, Commissioner, you are affected by this only tangentially, this being primarily a matter for the Competition Commissioner, it is for this reason that I really do want to insist with some emphasis that the Commission should not just hand out ‘non-papers’ that it sends to governments – the last was on 12 November this year – but should involve Parliament in this debate. We are not prepared to take the rap for whatever decisions the Commission comes up with if Parliament cannot be properly involved in the legislative process.
So let me say quite bluntly that, as you have already mentioned, we called for a framework directive. We called for a framework directive on the basis of Article 95, which deals with the internal market. That means that this public debate on the basis of Article 95 leads to a decision by Parliament and the Council by way of the codecision procedure. What has been submitted to us so far says only that previous procedure in competition policy was being followed, in other words, that a decision by the Council would be sufficient, that Parliament would be informed and should then see what happens next. It is exactly as you have said: the topic will give rise to a great debate on social and economic policy. Far from being something that the Commission can sort out with the Council behind closed doors, that must be done in public view, here in the directly-elected Parliament.
The reason why I make these somewhat pointed observations is that these issues are dealt with in none of these documents, which are numerous and of varying quality, the non-paper being far and away the best of those that have been submitted. The evaluation methodology set out in the summer was put together so carelessly, and was of such poor quality, that it cannot serve as a basis on which to raise proper awareness.
I call on the Commission to stop biding its time and do the business at long last! The European Court of Justice's ruling in the Ferring case is a workable basis on which to evaluate state aid and public services. I call upon you to be prompt in submitting decisions based on it and to delay no longer."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples