Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.8.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, policing is one of the key functions of modern states. An important part of policing involves guaranteeing the safety of citizens as a fundamental principle of living together in freedom. The dramatic increase in the range of activities within contemporary societies has however led to a need for additional security and control services for goods and persons. These may be provided by either natural or by legal persons. It has proved necessary for states to respond to this situation and find a way of integrating private security operationally into the monopoly rightly held by the state, given that this is a complementary activity which comes under the public security service.
It should also be pointed out that to date, the Community has not adopted a directive aimed at regulating the private security sector. Nonetheless, this should not present an obstacle to future harmonisation of this sector. As rapporteur, I am therefore of the view that if the present draft decision were adopted, it would contravene Article 47 of the Treaty of the European Union. The latter requires the Union to respect the Community’s competence to act within the scope granted to it under the Treaty establishing the European Community, and prevents the Union from legislating within that scope.
The initiative is certainly pertinent and worthwhile. Nonetheless, for the reasons cited, I propose that its content be reconsidered. I further propose that pursuant to Article 208 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council should request the Commission to undertake a study of what should be involved in a common action in the sector of legal or natural persons providing private security services. If appropriate, the adoption of the necessary provisions should be proposed.
Mr President, I therefore propose that the draft decision submitted by the Kingdom of Spain be rejected. It is not legally possible to regulate what falls within the scope of the first pillar of the Treaty establishing the European Community from the scope of application of the third pillar, regulated by the Treaty of the European Union. To do so would run counter to Article 47 of the Treaty of the European Union, amongst others.
The Member States of the European Union have adopted a series of legislative measures to establish administrative controls. These differ from state to state. Freedom, security and justice must be guaranteed by the states. It is for each one to guarantee the safety of its citizens. With this in mind, the creation of a single market and the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice are bound to mean that it is necessary to harmonise private security services within the European Union.
This is no easy task, however. Research has shown that a number of obstacles must be overcome. Firstly, national legislation in this field varies considerably. Secondly, there are significant legal barriers between Member States restricting or preventing the free provision of services in the private security sector. Thirdly, essential features of the various national regulations pertaining to the sector must be harmonised.
These therefore are the problems making it imperative for the Member States of the European Union to harmonise their legislation regarding the private security sector. Only then will the free provision of services across a European area of freedom, security and justice be possible.
That said, I am bound to request the House to support the report of the Committee on Freedoms in tomorrow’s vote. The report calls on the Council to withdraw the initiative in question. This is not because it is inappropriate, but because the legal form chosen is a decision, and also because of the legal basis chosen by the current Spanish Presidency to regulate the matter. That basis is Article 29(a) and Article 30(1) of the Treaty of the European Union. Both Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs and I myself at the Committee on Freedoms have already stated the need to establish whether the activity to be regulated under the draft initiative presented by Spain is within the competence of the Community or that of the Union.
In this connection, I should like to draw your attention to three rulings by the Court of Justice against Spain, Belgium and Italy, on the grounds that they had retained in their legislation a number of conditions relating to the provision of services in the private security industry. This contravened the principle of non-discrimination provided for in the Treaty of the European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am against the provision of private security services being part of a public service. The Court of Justice has ruled to this effect also. Consequently, as regards the free movement of workers, the exception concerning posts in the public services Article 39(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community does not apply.
Accordingly, I believe that the activities of private security services do not amount to exercising official authority. It is my view that when such services act in support of the public security services they do so merely in an auxiliary capacity.
I must stress also that the private security sector is an economic activity, as the Court of Justice has confirmed. All legislative arrangements governing its activity in the Member States must therefore be subject to the Community’s provisions aimed at establishing a single market and eliminating internal borders within the Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples