Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.3.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I wish to begin by paying tribute to the rapporteur for a magnificent job. Even if we did not always agree, he was extremely patient and open to cooperation, for which I am very grateful.
It is very important that we make our position clear once and for all. I am concerned that the report we adopted in committee has been interpreted in so many different ways. There have been jubilant press releases stating that the European Parliament has finally called for a framework directive, whereas others state that the European Parliament has finally rejected the framework directive once and for all. We need to get away from a situation in which we have watered-down compromises that can be interpreted in various ways.
I can state, on behalf of my group, that we do not want a framework directive. We do not want a one-size-fits-all solution for Europe, precisely because we want subsidiarity. But what is subsidiarity? Subsidiarity means that the national and local authorities can define their services of general interest and decide on how they are organised and financed. Subsidiarity does not mean automatic exemption from the market rules. We are therefore talking about two kinds of subsidiarity here.
I listened very carefully to what Mr Barroso said and again he left some room for interpretation. I would like to interpret his remarks as meaning that he also wants targeted and concrete solutions for real problems. Because another recommendation I should like to make to this House is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! In that case, it is not legislation we need, but solutions to real problems. I have worked for a local authority, so I know what the real problems are. Local authorities have very legitimate concerns. However, we have to acknowledge that there is also a tendency towards protectionism. We will have to find the right balance here.
We also need to get away from the ideological debate, or at least be honest and admit that there is a certain degree of ideology involved. Some people very legitimately feel that the public authority should also be the provider of services. I agree with my colleague, Mr Hökmark, that the market can provide excellent services. Some sectors have been liberalised and that did not mean that more people were excluded from access to those services, but quite the contrary: many services have come within reach of many more people, which is extremely social.
A market is not a jungle; it has rules, because if there are no rules it is not a market. Any market – even the simplest market on the market square – has rules and that is exactly what we mean by the social market economy we have in Europe. We need to recognise the diversity of the Member States and allow them to decide for themselves what they call ‘services of general interest’.
Finally, we should not try to define what services of general interest and services of general economic interest are, because the word ‘economic’ applies not to the nature of the service itself but to the way in which it is provided. To take an example: everybody will recognise that water is of general interest, but it may be provided in a purely commercial way. So we must not lose ourselves in a senseless debate on the differences between ‘of general interest’ and ‘general economic interest’. The only interest we should be looking at here is the interest of our citizens and consumers."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples