Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030310.4.1-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I am going to respond to some of the speeches made in this debate, while my colleague, Mrs Reding, will deal with issues relating specifically to cultural diversity.
Mr Abitbol and Mr Berthu, I would hope, when it comes down it, that people will not cry wolf too often. If we cry wolf when there is no wolf, we only end up frightening people. There is no wolf here. Whatever your views on this issue and whatever you can establish about it, those of you who understand it and have access to the information know that there is no wolf. There is no question of opening a Pandora’s box of any kind. It has not been opened and remains closed.
Mr Désir, I completely understand all your reservations. I share a number of them. Once again, however, we should not act as if the Pandora’s box of deregulation had been opened. It remains closed. We are not considering the liberalisation of services. We are considering proceeding with opening up trade in services. This has nothing to do with deregulation, liberalisation or privatisation. We should not confuse two completely different debates. On the one hand, we have the debate amongst ourselves within the European Union on the extent of liberalisation of certain sectors that have hitherto been protected. These include energy, transport and postal services. This debate concerns the way we organise our own society. It involves a number of my colleagues within the Commission as well as Parliament and the Council. On the other hand, we have the debate on issues relating to external negotiations. Please do not bring the dock workers into it. To the best of my knowledge, unless I am very much mistaken, the dock workers’ presence relates to a draft directive on the internal market. The dock workers sector is not on the list. They are concerned about the internal market. If we open up transport services, or ask others to do so, then our control over those services, and over those we are asking to open up their markets, will not be affected in any way by negotiations of this kind. Allow me to repeat: in no way will it be affected. We will retain our sovereign right to regulate these sectors as we see fit. This matter therefore has nothing to do with the draft directive at issue.
I would like to comment briefly on what Mr Herzog had to say. Overall, I agree with him. The real debate, underlying the present one, the anxiety, fears and reservations concern what is happening within the European Union, or what will happen in the coming years. I understand all the feelings expressed. I therefore agree with Mr Herzog that, in this debate, in the Commission’s work and in future debates with the Council and Parliament, we should focus on the organisation of public services, of the universal service, of services of general interest within the European Union. If we had more direction and if the agreement between us on what exactly constitutes services of public interest were more clearly defined, then some of the fears expressed in this debate would be dispelled, and rightly so.
I would now like to turn to the questions concerning the water sector. I recognise these are sensitive issues. I appreciate that Mr Turmes, Mrs Figueiredo and Mr Karlsson wish to point out to me that, thus far, GATS has failed to produce noteworthy results as far as water is concerned. I would simply respond by saying that water is outside the remit of GATS. Thus far, no country has given even a minimal commitment concerning the water distribution sector under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Not a single one! No such commitment has been given by any country. What has happened, or what is happening in a number of countries stems from sovereign decisions that countries have taken on liberalisation or on privatisation. This has nothing to do with international negotiations on services. If many countries, particularly developing ones, have proceeded with cases of independent liberalisation or privatisation, it is for the most part because they needed foreign direct investment. In my opinion, GATS and other similar negotiations allow such countries to attract investment without surrendering their right to regulate. There have been occasions when they have been forced to do so as the result of a reckless approach. In a sense, therefore, this amounts to a form of protection. I would remind the House once again that our proposals for this area relate only to distribution. They do not relate to access to water, as Mr Turmes recognised.
Lastly, before I give Mrs Reding the floor, I would like to respond to those Members who have urged me to be more proactive, namely Mr De Clercq, Mr Harbour, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel and Mr Rübig. I am not surprised by their statements. I do wish to take a harder line on this matter but I believe I should take account of the misgivings expressed in different quarters. In general, these concerns stem from confusing international negotiations on trade in services, on the one hand, with the attitudes and negotiations within the European Union on the control, regulation and deregulation of services, on the other hand. In my opinion, these two debates are quite different. Given that these misgivings and concerns do exist, however, we must respond to them patiently and as clearly as possible. The Commission is ready to do just this.
Briefly, I will turn to Mr van Velzen’s question on universities. No commitments concerning this sector will be given on this occasion. At the Uruguay Round ten years ago, we rashly gave a number of commitments on opening up private universities in certain Member States. This time, we will stand firm.
I would now like to consider the issue of bilateral relations with the United States, which I discussed with my American counterparts in Washington on Monday and Tuesday of last week. There are, indeed, a number of problems concerning implementation of WTO decisions on settling differences. The United States is not moving very quickly to implement these decisions. I visited the country to speed things up and I made sure our point of view on this was very clear, particularly to Congress, so that it would move forward with the necessary legislation. At this stage, the problem lies with Congress, not with the Administration. Congress has not said it will not proceed with the necessary legislation on this issue. Should it fail to do so however, the WTO has endowed us with the means to focus our minds, to use an English expression.
Mrs McNally, with regard to the part of these negotiations on access to trade in services that concerns public services within the European Union, I have made my position on the content very clear: nothing we offer in these negotiations will undermine the current status of public services within the European Union.
I would now like to turn to the other issue, as outlined by Mrs van Lancker. This is the question of whether we might just be asking too much of certain developing countries on the issue of opening up the services sector. In the first place, I am aware that many developing countries need a competitive services sector. I know that while, in our part of the world, the services sector accounts for 60% of the economy, in most developing countries the services sector makes up between 40% and 50% of the economy. This is a considerable percentage. I am aware that developing countries themselves are calling for the liberalisation of the services sector, particularly in relation to the European Union. Lastly, I do not want us to fall headlong into the trap of what I would call ‘euromorphism’ over the issue of public services. In Europe we have an extremely well-developed public services structure. I am one of those who value it highly, although some may disagree with me. I must state clearly that other countries throughout the world, especially some developing countries, do not have the same type of public services provision. At present, these developing countries do not intend and frequently cannot afford to establish public services that, if I may say so, mirror our own. In this case, opening up the services market is the best way to improve the management of the economies of developing countries, make them more competitive and integrate them more effectively into world trade.
I will let my colleague, Mrs Reding, respond to Mrs Fraisse’s comments. I would, however, like to remind Mrs Fraisse that the secret of a successful team, especially a sports team, is to have a strong defence and a strong attack. In this regard, I think the distribution of roles is appropriate.
I would like to reply specifically to the question concerning sport raised by Mrs Fraisse. At this stage, there is no European Union offer relating in any way to sport or leisure, for the very simple reason that we have not received any requests to this effect.
In her contribution, Mrs Lucas focused on questions of transparency. Let us be very clear on this issue. The whole House has heard an account of the principles on which the Commission’s approach to these negotiations is based. I have explained these principles on numerous occasions. A number of Members (one Member for each group and the coordinators, in particular) have been able to study the details of my proposal by virtue of the institutional agreement between the institutions. I can well understand that you may have doubts about how the details of my proposals compare with the broad lines put forward. I can well understand also that you may wish to challenge me on my intentions. That is perfectly normal. Each and every one of you can ask your coordinator whether or not the details of my proposals correspond to what I previously announced. To my knowledge, the coordinators have had this information at their disposal for almost three weeks. Nobody, however, has approached me to say that the detailed proposals do not correspond with what I had previously announced. I am very much relieved as I am not in the habit of acting otherwise. Mrs Lucas, there is, indeed, transparency on this subject. If I do not make all the offers completely public, it is because it is sometimes better to keep matters confidential, in the best interests of either consultation or negotiation. Moreover, this is something the European Parliament itself understands well. For example, Parliament reserves the right to confidentiality in the case of conciliation procedure when negotiations would be at risk. I believe it is right for Parliament to retain this option. As in all negotiations, there is a time for informing the public and a time for discretion.
As to the substance, I would refer to Mr Clegg’s comments where the main points are concerned. He is quite right in what he says. Unless and until the Convention grants the European Parliament real constitutional power in trade affairs, denied it by the earlier Intergovernmental Conference, where this type of procedure – which I endeavour to manage to the best of my ability – is concerned, you will indeed, in theory, be without any power in this area. We have gone well beyond the current provisions on information and transparency of the EC Treaty. If you want to move further ahead, as the Commission does, please support us. I trust that Members’ interventions at the Convention will be as emphatic as those sometimes directed against the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples