Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.2.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our vote on this report is eagerly awaited. Throughout this working year, I have experienced at first hand the vehemence and the passion of the political debate on this subject.
Before Maastricht, local and national authorities made their choices, and those choices coexisted comfortably with the Common Market. Since the advent of the single market, conflicts and concerns have been rife. The fact is that a solution to these problems is still being quite literally prevented by the existence of taboos. Some boast of a proud record of liberalisation. In the opposite corner are those who regard public service and competition as incompatible. Others – and I hope there will be many of us – believe that liberalisation has had both positive and negative effects, that a better balance needs to be struck between commercial and non-commercial principles in the substance of laws and regulations and that such a balance would enhance cohesion and efficiency. An objective assessment of the real situation is needed, because the conviction that the market does everything better is becoming an article of dogma and is dividing Europe into two camps. It seems crucial to me that the legislature should be committed to redressing the balance and reconciling these conflicting principles in accordance with the great tradition of European civilisation.
Many of my honourable colleagues accept the idea of a balance but consider that the power to strike such a balance rests exclusively with the local, regional and national public authorities. I absolutely agree that the decision-making rights of decentralised administrative bodies should be defended and strengthened, but I am convinced that the market will steadily erode them unless the Union acts as a guarantor of these rights and takes its due share of responsibility. And indeed our Community would not really serve any purpose unless it also provided complementary services in domains such as education, rail transport or information. My colleagues have rejected this line of argument, but I stand by my view that subsidiarity and co-responsibility must go hand in hand. Throughout history, Europeans – be they Christians or Humanists, Liberals or Socialists – have deemed it essential to ensure that services of general economic interest were so organised as to foster the development of the individual and enhance life in society. Let us not fall short of those ideals. Let us strive resolutely to bridge the gaps that divide our national communities with regard to the ethics of universal access to services of general interest.
As to the matter in hand, why a framework directive? Not for the sake of legislating, because we do more than enough of that. In this case it is necessary, however. It is time that the legislature itself interpreted the treaties instead of letting the Commission exercise all sorts of power – legislative, executive and judicial powers as well as powers of self-assessment. The Convention recognises our right to do so, having inserted a new article to that effect in the draft Constitutional Treaty, and the prevailing situation demands that we do so. Firstly, a legal framework must give services of general interest the status of a positive right in law rather than simply condoning the protection of such services as a derogation from the norm; rules governing the market and competition would then be bound to respect the status of these services. Secondly, there is a need to eliminate the profound uncertainty about the distinction between services of economic interest and those of non-economic interest. Key areas such as education, health and water must not be liberalised, and there is a need to recognise the increasingly numerous hybrid situations in which social, economic and environmental factors are intertwined. Accordingly, my proposals are designed to provide local authorities, non-profit businesses, semi-public companies and public-private partnerships with a general framework of more solid guarantees within which they can develop.
Thirdly, there is a need to clarify the principles relating to funding and organisation. The Altmark judgment on state aid is a step forward, but it leaves serious question marks about the calculation of costs, while care must also be taken to avoid criminalising public operators. Fourthly, we want a pluralist and independent evaluation method to be established. To reject it would be an affront to democracy. Let me add that a framework directive would certainly be consistent with the sectoral directives.
We therefore ask the Commission to respond quickly to the results of the consultation process it has launched and to the parliamentary vote by answering this question: what commitments is it prepared to make with regard to the legal framework, funding and evaluation? Moreover, we refuse to accept the use of Article 86(3), which gives us no right of codecision, in its response to the Altmark judgment.
I should like to offer my very sincere thanks to the numerous associations, NGOs, trade unions, local-authority networks and businesses which were consulted and whose opinions enlightened and assisted me. Like the elected politicians, they want to have the legitimate means to express themselves far more on the policies and rules of the Union. Let me also thank my fellow members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who have shown great commitment, and particularly those who have been seeking compromises. Regrettably, a majority said no to a framework directive and no to a democratic evaluation. By so doing, they not only rejected my proposals and our compromises; they quite simply turned their backs on the resolution adopted by this Parliament in 2001. Tomorrow, the House can reaffirm its endorsement of that resolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that many of you, whether on the Right or the Left, are pledged to defend and promote services of general interest. For this reason, I strongly urge you not to retreat into party or national blocs but to make up your own mind on each amendment, on each article, motivated only by the general interest of the European people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples