Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060216.15.4-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted against the draft directive on services and would cite three reasons for having done so.
1) This House may well have made improvements to the Commission draft, but I do not regard them as sufficient. It is wrong that it should still apply to a number of public service sectors, to what are termed services of general economic interest. This directive really should not apply to such operations as, for example, the collection of household waste and the supply of water. Moreover, framework legislation is needed to put the right to public service provision on a secure footing.
2) Certain points in the directive can be interpreted in more than one way. The public currently take a sceptical view of Europe and so legal uncertainty in legislation is the least we need.
3) What we need is a social and trustworthy Europe with the same harmonised ground rules across the whole of internal market, and this directive is no way to create one.
I am nevertheless pleased to see that such sensitive sectors as port services, employment agencies, care of the elderly, the health sector and childcare have been excluded from the directive’s scope and that, moreover, each country’s social achievements remain intact, thus making social dumping impossible. I have voted in favour of the amendments to that effect, as also of all those amendments that improved the text and made it clearer."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples