Mr President, Commissioner, we are extremely concerned about the Commission’s strategy in relation to services of general interest. First of all, we condemn the lack of transparency, and also of respect, towards civil society and Parliament. In fact, in relation to services of general interest, the Commission has carried out consultations throughout 2003, but they were separate consultations. The Competition DG has produced a package on financial compensations, which I only know about through journalists, and essentially these texts completely ignore the advice and requests of our Parliament. Financial compensation is essential to the very existence of services of general interest. Any intrusion by the Commission in the field of definitions and rules justifying compensations would be unacceptable, since it is outside of its competences. The Commission’s role is to apply the law, not make it. Another reason for Parliament’s call for a legal act under codecision which would include the principles of funding is to clarify the Treaties and case-law. In this regard, only codecision would allow us to achieve a legitimate and viable compromise. Therefore, in the White Paper, which it must publish before April, the Commission must give a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this demand for a legislative act. By saying ‘no’, by not responding clearly and by assuming the right to impose substantial definitions and rules, it would be committing an abuse of power. For the moment, on the basis of the information available to me, I note that, in the package under preparation, it assumes it has the power to lay down rules, and that many of these choices formally contradict the European Parliament’s resolution. The resolution we adopted on 14 January of this year states that 'the task at Community level for services of general interest is to guarantee their exercise within the internal market and, notably, to ensure that competition rules are compatible with public service obligations'. But I believe that the Monti package, which I have not seen, makes funding possibilities more difficult, in the name of full respect for competition rules. I would insist, under these circumstances, and we have already told you this – I remember in particular the speeches by Mr Langen and Mrs Flautre, last year – on the fact that we do not want a new communication on the interpretation of the Treaty and jurisprudence. We want the Commission to prepare a legislative act involving the codecision procedure. However, the Commission is competent in the field of the application of rules. It is therefore entitled to prepare a decision and a framework, but these executive acts depend, as we all know, on the interpretation of rules. That is why we are asking you to say explicitly today, when you have corrected them following consultation, that these texts under preparation will only enter into force provisionally, while we await the adoption of a legislative act. I would now like to draw your attention to the substance of the Monti proposals, which contradict our resolution. Far from increasing legal certainty, they will worsen the uncertainty. Many services of general economic interest, in particular social, which did not previously notify, would now have to notify. For the acceptance of compensation, the requirements for tendering procedures will be toughened up. Our requests for criteria for the calculation of costs are being ignored. The notion of over-compensation would be greatly extended. As for services provided essentially to companies, they would be considered not to be included in the notion of service of general economic interest, which would represent a blatant intrusion into the field of definitions. So here are my questions. What is the Commission’s timetable for action? Will you respond coherently to the consultation and the proposals on compensations in the White Paper that we asked you to present here in April? Will you state clearly yes or no to a legal act through codecision? Will you state that your executive texts are of a provisional nature while we await the adoption of the corresponding legal act?

Political group: GUE-NGL