Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-12-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070312.17.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I am growing a little weary, and am getting the impression that we have gone over the same ground a thousand times and that each time, the same arguments are dredged up. We have been doing this for years now. We are of one mind where the importance of social services of general interest are concerned. That much is beyond dispute. I do not, however, share the automatic conclusion that is drawn that, because something has the label ‘social’, market rules should not apply.
We are all in favour of subsidiarity, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean that countries or local governments – and this is how I see it – can decide for themselves how they organise their services, or does it mean – as some people believe – that market rules, the rules for fair competition, should not apply?
I am not in favour of legislation where it is not needed. We have to carefully identify the problem areas and tailor our solutions to them, with legislation if necessary. There is no need for a general call, which I have been hearing for years in this House, for a legislative framework and sector directive. We should first of all create legal clarity, and I would in that respect refer to the contribution made by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which I unconditionally endorse.
Moreover, many people believe that if something has the label ‘social’ on it, this always involves small-scale services that are not self-sufficient. It goes without saying that we should support services of this kind, and, in fact, the Treaty also provides for this. Council housing, for example, is a multi-million business. It may be situated in the social sector, with a collective objective, but it does involve stacks of money and have the same interests at stake, such as those of corporations, trade unions, employers, politicians and the like.
The only aspect that is lacking right now is the interest of the citizen as a consumer and as a buyer of services, which should, in my view, come first. Competition has, in many cases, led to a better provision of services and better rates, and where necessary, the government can always help out or protect. This is how it is enshrined in the Treaty and I cannot see why a general adjustment should be made at this point in time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples