Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.6.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioner, this debate reminds me a little of the debate we held on so-called services of general interest and competition law. Although the liberal professions are clearly not a supermarket – and although a supermarket as a
market is not a service of general interest in this sense – the two do have some things in common. In the case of services of general interest, we agreed that competition law, the subsidy rules, and the internal market, meant that there was room for exceptions, to which subsidiarity would apply on the grounds that they can be shown to possess features from and be defined in terms of different identities and cultures. I think that the basic principle of subsidiarity – looking at different cultures and identities and the historical background of a given situation – can be applied here too.
As supporters of competition law, and not just of Commissioner Monti, we also, though, have to remain consistent. I therefore feel that the application of EU competition rules to the liberal professions is reasonable and should be supported, provided that the particularities of this sector of the market are taken into account. I am therefore very pleased to see that the Commission is not questioning the existence of professional organisations.
This, though, brings us to the heart of the matter. Liberal professions – lawyers, notaries, engineers, architects, doctors and auditors – are very specific in character and have undergone very specific historical development. They require high levels of qualification and a special relationship of trust with clients. However, they are also distinguished by the fact that the consumer does not have access to the same information as the service providers themselves. These characteristics have to be borne in mind.
I therefore think that the Commission cannot be allowed to make the mistake of interpreting professional codes of conduct as a barrier to the freedom of movement of services. I do however entirely agree with the Commission that self-regulation cannot be used as a shield against the market and should not put consumers at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, we must not oversimplify matters. The primary aim of such self-regulation is to guarantee service quality by means of professional ethical standards and to prevent conflicts of interest and misleading advertising.
It is in order to guarantee service quality that professional groups take responsibility for drawing up codes of conduct, and these lay down certain standards to ensure that professionals adhere to the rules and guarantee professional ethics. I see professional codes of conduct as essential for guaranteeing the impartiality, competence, integrity and responsibility of the members of each professional body and for protecting consumers. Parliament and my group support the liberal professions because of their high ethical standards, the security they provide for consumers, their competence, impartiality and integrity, and we would ask that this special status be adequately taken into account when considering competition law so as to create security for all."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples