Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.2.2-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not for the first time, but yet again, the debate on the Green Paper shows that services of general interest, the way in which they are provided and structured, are more than ever in the spotlight, not only in terms of political debate but also of the European public’s concerns about universal access to services. For us in this Group of the Party of European Socialists, they are an indispensable component of any model of European society – I will explicitly use the word ‘component’, as this is not about developing a European model for services of general interest; they are an essential and elemental component in a European social model with objectives common to all European societies. They play a crucial part in improving the quality of life for all citizens and in overcoming economic stagnation, social exclusion and isolation.
This is where I want to attempt to clear up a misunderstanding. This is not about our having the market and competition on the one hand and services of general interest on the other. Services of general interest can perfectly well be provided by market instruments in a competitive context, but we have to take note of the fact that there are also situations in which the market does not provide such services efficiently, and that is when the democratic community has to be able to ensure that such services can be provided outside the market’s machinery.
This interaction highlights our need for a bit more legal clarity. That is why our group endorses the rapporteur’s thinking on this, and this is where I too want to extend warm thanks to Mr Herzog, who really has done everything possible to bring about compromise; even though he is the rapporteur, he has changed his position in essential areas, and I think it is rather a pity, in view of this achievement, this attempt at consensus, that there are elements in this House that have quite simply refused to give him credit for it.
We endorse the report because we need it if we are to have legal certainty and a common legal framework within which these issues can be dealt with, but, above all else, we want Parliament to have a part in it, and on that point I want to say something in response to Mr Langen’s statement that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has, in the meantime, come to an agreement that they do not want a framework directive after all, on the grounds that Article 95 does not allow it. I do not see that such is the case at all; you decided that you did not want one, and the reason why you did so was that a majority of you no longer saw it as politically acceptable. For whatever reasons you did this, we can understand them, we can live with them, but please do not try to tell me that it cannot be done for lack of suitable legal basis. That has never bothered us before, and quite right too; when we wanted to get something done politically, we found the legal basis for doing so, and, as the Commission is a veritable master at doing this sort of thing, now is the time for us to support it in finding one. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact we want it, but Parliament’s right of codecision must be safeguarded if we do.
Of course, a legal framework of this sort needs to contain some substance, and I urge that we should, in future, spend more time discussing substance than this or that legal basis. That is what our debates should be about; there is a whole range of items that have to be embedded in a framework of this sort, and I want to list just six of them. As I have already said, the framework directive must aim to give the stakeholders legal security when current Community law is applied to what they do. There is, quite clearly, no disagreement about the fact that the actual definition, structure, organisation and funding of services of general interest lie within the remit of the Member States and their sub-divisions – that is, of course, the municipalities, where these have the relevant competence. It follows that it is not worth working towards a uniform and all-embracing European definition, but there are a number of standards and a few criteria that of course amount to the same thing and that also have to be embedded in it. Universality, for example, is one of them, as are also continuity, the quality of the service, efficiency, affordability and also the involvement of the users and the democratic supervision of the service providers. Far more than was the case in the past, we have to concentrate on the actually essential point: when is an activity economic and when is it not? That is the yardstick by which we determine whether or not the rules on competition or the internal market should apply, and I see this as the area in which we should pursue the debate. So, the situation being as it is, we say ‘yes’ to a legal framework of this kind, and let us discuss its substance rather than any legal bases."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples