Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.12.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, many thanks for allowing me to speak for the second time this evening. I would especially like to thank the Members of this Parliament who have postulated their ideas this evening, as well as their criticisms regarding the document which is tabled for discussion this evening.
I would, furthermore, like to respond to the remarks made by Mr MacCormick on artists. I recognise that Mr MacCormick has a valid point when he highlights the situation of travelling artists within a European context – i.e. those working in different countries such as, for example a concert pianist or a dance group – when he highlights the predicament of those who create and propagate the arts. I myself would like to make an effort to raise the issue of the freedom of movement within the European Union but also to provide an improved basis for taxation. But, as I am sure Mr MacCormick will agree, this is not easy. There is no European income tax at the moment and it is not likely that there will be any in the foreseeable future. This might be a good thing but, in any event, I share Mr MacCormick’s opinion that the tax situations of artists working in the different Member States require attention and I am quite prepared to look into any objective suggestions made.
As for lecturers at Italian universities of non-Italian nationality, I can inform Mr MacCormick that it so happens that I signed a letter on this matter today, addressed to an MEP who had lodged the same complaint. As far as this issue is concerned, we are aware and it is in hand.
Mrs Peijs distinguished between minimum and maximum harmonisation. She stated that she much prefers maximum harmonisation. I agree, in principle, with Mrs Peijs. Ideally, we should agree on a maximum level of harmonisation throughout the Union and each country should observe this. There is, of course, room for defensible exceptions to the general principle. Think, for example, of the social standards which are higher in some countries than in others. If we consider that some standards to safeguard, defend and protect the environment are higher and more stringent in some countries than in others, then surely we will not prevent these countries from exceeding the generally accepted standard. Indeed, my starting point coincides with that of Mrs Peijs. I too favour maximum standards, but we cannot prevent countries from going beyond the generally accepted standard in some areas. As far as this is concerned, I think we need to try to strike the right balance between the internal market on the one hand and requirements with regard to the environment or social standards which exceed the general norm on the other.
She also spoke about the postal services directive, which is a very important point. My department and, indeed, I myself, are examining how we can move this issue along. It may be premature to give details at this stage but I do agree with Mrs Peijs when she says that it is by no means an ideal situation that companies are bought by certain postal services which have a monopoly position, in other words that some companies are bought by those bringing about a monopoly-like situation. We do not welcome monopolies being used to purchase companies which are in the same line of business but which are independent. Because then this is a clear indication that the liberalisation of postal services has not gone far enough, or at least that this liberalisation is not applied correctly by some postal companies. We have to be very mindful of this because once again, we cannot accept this and this is also one of the reasons that I hope, in the not too distant future, to propose further ideas on how the postal directive can be further detailed.
I will skip over Mrs Peijs’ observations on the decentralisation of decisions in terms of competition, but not because I do not want to discuss them. In the dim and distant past, I myself have been involved in policies on competition in the capacity of minister in the Dutch government. Not wishing, however, to encroach too much on the remit of my colleague, Mr Monti, I will not go into this issue any further.
She closed her intervention with the words “enforcement is the priority”. I agree with Mrs Peijs on that score. To draft a policy is one thing, to enforce it is quite another. This is, of course, also one of the key points of this document of the new strategy, namely that we acknowledge that legislation has been laid down in broad terms but that it is now a matter of implementation, enforcement and monitoring this implementation, so as to enable the Commission to lend its support to the correct implementation of provisions of the internal market by means of infringement procedures.
My penultimate remark concerns an observation made by Mr Berenguer Fuster, where he states that consumer protection should not jeopardise the internal market. The document that we submitted and that is being discussed this evening, attempts in fact, in the first strategic objective, to create a balance between the internal market on the one hand and the protection of consumer and environment interests on the other. We have made this attempt and hope that we have succeeded to some extent in creating this balance and hence in preventing the protection of consumer interests from jeopardising the internal market. Because the internal market, of course, is also there for the manufacturer and industry although it mainly serves the consumer. In other words, if consumer protection were to be detrimental to the internal market, we would shoot ourselves in the foot and this is not what we want. And I believe that is not what the Members of this Parliament want either.
To finish off, Mr President, I really valued the observation made by Mr Harbour. I know that Mr Harbour applauds the document on strategy with regard to the internal market. I would also like to thank him for attending last Friday’s hearing. In fact, Mrs Palacio gave a very valuable general introduction to that end and I would like to thank her too. Mr Harbour stated that the internal market should mainly be
in other words should accommodate the requirements of the consumers and of the citizens of the country in question and should also be flexible. I could not agree more. We live in a world which changes at high-speed. The new electronic gadgets used in business are well-known, are gaining in popularity and create their own problems. The Commission should react to this. Will you allow me to impress on Mr Harbour and, in fact, all Members of this Parliament that it is the ambition of this Commission to be
so that we can indeed, bearing in mind consumer interests, meet the needs at the time as flexibly as possible.
Mr President, I hope I have not spoken for too long. I thank you for your patience and that of the Members. I would also like to thank them for their attention. It would be a pleasure, should opportunity allow, to have a further exchange of ideas with this Parliament on this important topic.
I will try to respond to a few points in more detail. I will probably not be able to deal with all the points in detail, but I would like to stress, for the benefit of the Members of this Parliament, that both my colleagues and I have carefully taken note of all the points brought forward and I would like to underline that we will make every effort to incorporate the ideas and thoughts prevailing in Parliament into the document at issue this evening.
I would also like to thank the MEPs who have expressed words of appreciation for the Commission and who have welcomed this new strategy for the internal market. The Commission is very grateful. The Commission is new in this legislature. We have tried our best to work as fast as possible to submit this document to Parliament, thus enabling Parliament to give its opinion at the earliest opportunity.
Needless to say, criticism can be levelled at many points and this is what some representatives did. But I do not agree, on the other hand, with Mr Medina Ortega, who remarked that the internal market should become a reality to benefit all European citizens. The internal market is a reality. The internal market exists and all European citizens benefit greatly from this in the form of low inflation, low pricing and the large choice of goods and services which they want to buy. In other words, I would like to say to Mr Medina Ortega: the internal market is a reality which benefits everyone, especially the consumer, albeit that they may not be sufficiently aware of this. As far as this is concerned, it is up to both the Commission and the MEPs to make this even clearer to these consumers.
A number of representatives, not least Mrs Palacio, have mentioned what is termed these days as “soft law”. In other words, these are not legislative instruments but instruments which relate to the use of the mutual acceptance of standards with regard to issues such as “peer group pressure” and to the adoption of the best working methods from other Member States. This is a key element of this communication. We are indeed making efforts to this effect and, as such, we are drawing on the original methods used to complete the internal market, namely the 1992 project by Lord Cockfield. There are indeed many advantages to the mutual recognition of standards and we would like to continue in the same vein.
It is definitely the case that there is a difference between harmonisation and this mutual recognition of standards. As far as this is concerned, I share Mr Lehne’s view of assessing on a case-by-case basis whether harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards should be applied. Although it is something that has to be assessed case by case, I would like to stress – the proposed resolution, in fact, deals with this in one of the sections – the great importance of the mutual recognition of standards because they work faster, are more flexible in this fast-changing world and because they make sure they meet the requirement of subsidiarity. This is something Mrs Wallis remarked on. I could not agree more. The right balance needs to be struck, of course, between harmonisation on the one hand and the principle of subsidiarity on the other. I think that the mutual recognition of standards meets this requirement.
According to Mrs Berger, the structure of the document was somewhat chaotic. I am pleased that Mr MacCormick claimed the opposite. After all, he spoke in English about a “clear and rational document”. These are, of course, two conflicting opinions. My own opinion is that the document is well-organised. There are four strategic objectives, each of which is split up into three, four, five or six operational objectives. And then, of course, there are still those objectives which require a practical plan of implementation. So with the best will in the world, I cannot see why Mrs Berger claims that the structure of the document is chaotic.
She does seem to cut ice when she advocates involvement of the European Parliament in the annual cycle set out in the document. This to my mind is a very important point. I would also like to stress that, every year at the appropriate time for this, the Commission will gladly listen to the remarks and ideas put forward by the European Parliament when, in the course of its annual cycle, it can once again examine the actual target actions close-up and substantiate them further.
We find the involvement of the European Parliament a matter of the greatest importance. This is not only because in the European constitution, Council, European Parliament and the Commission form the three corners of the triangle which is to decide on all of this in a balanced way, but also because the representative body of the people that is gathered here is clearly best suited to interpret the opinions of Europe’s citizens, which is what it is all about, thus enabling the Commission to draw the right conclusions. I would, therefore, like to impress on Mrs Berger and other Members of this representative body that we will listen very carefully to the opinions expressed by Parliament when, in the future, they are put forward once or maybe twice a year or through contact on a smaller scale with the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"responsive and flexible"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples