Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-421"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.46.2-421"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by giving my sincere thanks to the Commissioner for his speech clarifying the current position of the Commission on this subject. He pointed out that Parliament is a good ally of the Commission’s, and indeed we do support his view that a more transparent, effective and open European defence market is an important objective, with a view both to strengthening the sector in Europe and to further objectives. I believe that what I have just said goes for all my fellow Members: I would point to the broad consensus we achieved on our resolution on the Green Paper.
We learn with interest that the work on the Directive on the procurement of defence equipment is well advanced and that the Commission intends to present a proposal in autumn. Mrs Weiler has just pointed out that defence markets are still largely national in character. The State is the only relevant bidder for defence equipment, and it is true that, in the case of many award decisions, recourse is still taken to legal bases that are questionable, to say the least.
However, I agree with Mrs Weiler: there is little support for increasing the defence budget. I believe that this draft Directive takes exactly the right course, namely increasing the efficiency reserve in the European armaments industry, ending the fragmentation of the market, and really improving efficiency and achieving economies of scale. That is why we welcome the Commissioner’s remarks on expected growth and on increased competitiveness on the European defence equipment market. I believe that this will also have a positive effect on the trained labour market.
We need a clear definition of the equipment covered by the derogation. The existing regulations are indeed insufficient to meet the particular needs of the defence equipment market. Therefore, we also welcome the Commission’s initiative to adapt the rules to the state of affairs on the defence equipment market and to strive for greater flexibility in this regard. I would be grateful if the Commissioner could tell us why he decided to adapt general public procurement law instead of presenting a separate directive. This may well be appropriate, but I should like him to say a few words about this.
The bottom line is that we agree with the Commissioner when he says that the opening-up of this market will increase transparency and competition and thus ultimately reduce the burden on taxpayers.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that, as I see it, this draft Directive is far more important than any considerations of industrial or internal-market policy. It will contribute to the development of European security and defence policy, thus bringing about progress in what is traditionally a core domain of national sovereignty. The Directive will bring about progress that may not be revolutionary, but is hopefully measurable, towards a European Security and Defence Policy truly deserving of the name. I would like to add that I would be obliged if, in future, such debates were held in Brussels and not in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples