Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.3.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as the coordinator of the PSE Members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs I asked to be the last speaker on the PSE Group side, precisely in order to remove some of the prejudices and misunderstandings about this debate. So I hope I can eliminate some of those misunderstandings.
Firstly, I want to thank Mr Barroso for his speech and to say that we in the PSE Group fully understand his four principles and his view that it is necessary to create more legal certainty for the service providers, whether they are public or private or something in between, for the Member States and the decentralised public authorities, and for the citizens. As Mr Harbour rightly said, that is the crucial element.
I think Mr Barroso has correctly interpreted the report that Mr Rapkay prepared on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and that we voted for by a large majority in the committee. We have not expressed a preference for any particular form of legal instrument, but have made it clear that legislative initiatives are needed and that we should have a full political process of decision-making on this, in which Parliament and the Council can participate fully. Codecision is the right way to deal with these political issues. That is the message of the report. The report does not say that there should be a horizontal instrument or sector-specific instruments only; it leaves the options open and says that both methods can be used in parallel.
It will be clear from the debates that preferences differ, but also that there are a lot of prejudices about the options and preferences we promote. In my political group, I chaired a group of legal experts who drafted a text. Unfortunately I have the impression that many did not read this text, because if Mr Harbour had read it he would see that it is not a political statement but a clear attempt to reconcile the rules of the market, of competition, the subsidiarity that we want to guarantee for local authorities, the quality aspects and the importance of public service and services of general interest and economic interest for the citizens of Europe. This is not ideological; it is a concrete attempt to reconcile these. The draft is open for debate and we hope you will participate in discussing it. But it is up to the Commission to come up with real proposals and then we can set to work on the legislative methods and formulations.
For the vote on this report, again I state that we have agreed to disagree on the issue of which instruments would be preferable. There are amendments now from both sides, from the ALDE Group and from the Verts/ALE Group, to try again to force a decision on the preference. I do not think that is wise. I agree fully with Mrs Thyssen that it is wiser to stick to the agreement that we had and to leave this issue open. It is the Commission that has to decide and if one of those amendments is adopted the only result will be that whole report would fall. That would be a pity because, as everyone has said, Mr Rapkay and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have produced a good report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples