Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.2.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start with the most warm thanks to Mr Herzog, who had a difficult task as rapporteur and, having an explicitly left-wing stance, did not always find it easy to put his position across. He demonstrated a very great deal of willingness to cooperate. I would like to say that at the outset, for, on the substantive and fundamental issues, he and I are poles apart.
What I am saying now I say on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which, by a large majority, made a recommendation practically all of which the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs took on board, and whose first basic premise is that definition is a matter for the Member States. Rather than there being any need for a European model, it is the Member States or the sub-levels acting on their behalf that are competent in these matters. Secondly, the debate in which we are engaged is not about tampering with the efforts at liberalising certain sectors; on the contrary, we believe that this liberalisation in the internal market has, as a whole, albeit with some exceptions, been very successful and that it must not be jeopardised by European framework legislation.
Thirdly, we discussed the legal framework. On 13 November 2001, we called for a framework directive on the basis of the article on the internal market. There have to date been no indications whatever of this being possible, which is why most of our group have changed their position on this issue.
Commissioner Lamy, you have just given us a wonderful list of the options that are available – framework directive, White Paper, guidelines, exemption from notification and so on – but all that must be coherent. We have been discussing the topic for over three years, and the Commission was previously unable to give us chapter and verse concerning the various legal options available to us. Pleasing though what you have told us today has been to the ear, I do not believe that the Commission has finished its homework. Not the least reason why we have been debating this for so long is we have hitherto had only lists of issues, but no solutions.
It is for that reason that our group takes the line that the Green Paper must as soon as possible be succeeded by a White Paper in which the Commission will at last come clean, elaborate on the legal issues involved in a framework directive, and clarify what the potential options are. Having already spent two years waiting for this, we can do no other than encourage you, as soon as possible after the decision on Wednesday, not only to get started on it, but also to put some concrete proposals before us.
The last point I want to make is that water supply and individual regions are contentious issues. There are of course some local services that must continue in future to be offered by the responsible authorities at the local level. We are not interested in liberalising markets that are unsuited to liberalisation, but we are saying that each can decide whether something is to be done on an independent basis or whether it should be handed over to someone else. If, though, it is to be handed over to a third party, it must be put out to tender, so that the contract is awarded in an honest and transparent manner. That is the consensus to which we have come, and I hope that, having formed our opinions today, we will be able to adopt the whole Herzog report tomorrow."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples