Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.3.2-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, I believe that the time has come for legal and political clarification of this issue of services of general interest.
On the political front, because the debate on public services overshadowed the rest of the European debate, it poisoned the debate on the Constitutional Treaty, and it was blighted by the initial proposal for a directive on services in the internal market, since that proposal included a vast range of social services and services of general economic interest within its scope.
The distrust generated by the risk posed to public services by the actions of the Commission or the interventions of the European Union has a long history. It is warranted in many respects, one reason being the failure to strike a fair balance between the rules of the internal market and the preservation of the general public interest; another is the impact of a number of single-sector directives that have not delivered the promised or expected results. I am thinking, for example, of energy-price trends and of certain fears that have been confirmed with regard to postal services.
Clarification is also required on the legal side. You emphasised this point yourself a short time ago, Mr President of the Commission, when you listed the legislative initiatives that the Commission has taken recently to try to stabilise the interpretation of the law and the treaties with regard to public funding and the regulation of state aid, passenger transport, financing and compensation, etc.
I therefore believe it is wrong to set the need for sectoral initiatives against the need for a general framework in today’s debate. Single-sector initiatives are needed – you referred to some of these yourself – in areas such as health services or social services of general interest, and cross-cutting initiatives are needed too. Why? Because, as you said, one of the principles on which we must base our actions is respect for the right of each Member State and its local authorities to continue to define what they understand by services of general interest and by services of general economic interest. The interpretation of these concepts certainly varies from one Member State to another. The ways in which these services are organised and funded as well as the contours, the delineation, of public service are not the same in all our countries and sometimes even differ between regions within our countries or between local communities.
In the absence of legislation, it has fallen to the Court of Justice, and sometimes to the Commission, to interpret the Treaties. The fact is that these interpretations have generated an inconsistent and fluctuating body of case law, which has created legal uncertainty for local authorities, service providers and users. It has also kindled fears that the provision of services of general interest will be jeopardised by a kind of predominance of the forces of the internal market, competition and private operators. That is why we have taken this rather unusual step for a group in the European Parliament of proposing, as a symbolic gesture but also as a political measure, an initiative for the drafting of a framework directive designed to safeguard services of general economic interest.
We wanted to demonstrate that, given the necessary political will, a basis could be found in the Treaties and a directive could be formulated to answer the questions that now confront us. From this point of view, may I say the following to Mrs in't Veld: I believe this is precisely the legal framework we need if we are to protect subsidiarity, and that is what we have demonstrated with this draft framework directive. I invite Mrs in't Veld to familiarise herself with this initiative, which is intended to define and protect public services and services of general interest and to guarantee their long-term future.
I believe it is up to the legislature to establish the rules at this juncture. It is normal that the European Parliament, representing the people, and the national governments, representing the Member States, should be able to state openly, on the basis of a public debate, how Article 86 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted and to draw the demarcation line that safeguards the general public interest from the forces of the internal market and competition. Public services, as you said, Mr President of the Commission, are at the heart of the European social model. People are attached to them because they not only enhance their quality of life, enable them to enjoy their fundamental rights and contribute to economic and social cohesion but also make our continent and its territories more competitive.
It is therefore a legal as well as a political imperative to show today that the European Union is not hostile to public services, that it is not trying to stifle them, but that it seeks, on the contrary, to preserve, encourage and develop them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples