Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-23-Speech-5-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990723.3.5-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I should like to begin where Ms Gill left off, first of all by congratulating her on her maiden speech in this House. She will never feel such fear again or derive such satisfaction. I am sure the whole House thanks her for her contribution. Indeed, she summed up the feelings of the Commission in many ways when she said that she deeply regretted the existence of discrimination. That is the universal feeling in the Commission, which is why my colleague, Mr Van Miert, and his associates in the Commission specifically sought to do something effective about preventing for all time in the future and indeed for 1998 the use of discriminatory practices by CFO.
I should like to take up where Mr Vander Taelen left off. When he said that football is a valid alternative to war I was reminded of the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth. As I listened to some of the contributions in the course of this debate, I could not escape the feeling that sometimes the first casualty of football is truth because there were one or two contributions that were made passionately, but largely without the recognition of fact. I would like to respond on behalf of the Commission, with some repetition of fact. I regret it if I am repetitive, but if at first people do not hear, perhaps they will hear the second time.
I begin with Mr Perry. I enjoyed his recitation of sound-bites about pathetic, appalling and all the rest of it. But what is he really saying when he says that the European Commission has the power to impose a EUR 20m fine? In theory and in constitutional terms, he is right. But is he really suggesting that the European Commission should take EUR 20m or EUR 30m out of football and put it in the coffers of the European Commission? Mr Ford says ‘yes’, he would rather that the European Commission have the money than the CFO. He demonstrated a surprising distance from the realities of public opinion. This man has been my friend for a considerable time. I admire everything but his taste in football clubs. But the fact remains that if that were the course of action taken, he knows what the headlines would be. So does Mr Watson, who is disturbed about the reputation of the European Union. He knows the headlines would say: ‘Euros snatched from football’.
Let us be rational. Is it sensible in the circumstances to take the money in large amounts from football and deposit it in the European Commission's coffers, or is it sensible to take action that guarantees that on no future occasion will there be discriminatory sales of football or other international tournament tickets? Then Mr Perry says that he wants this action to be absolutely firm and ferocious. I can understand the sentiment. But to be consistent the same action would have to be taken against the organisers of the European Cup competition which happened to be in the United Kingdom in 1996. Football came home, it was said. Are we really suggesting in this House, or anywhere else, that we should look back to 1996 or comparable competitions and say that we are dishing out EUR 20m fines on those who organised these competitions? Come on. Let us be rational.
Let me return very briefly again to Mr Ford. He said those who make money out of football should put it back in. He knows very well that I am zealous in my support of that view. But I would suggest that we have to do rather more than attend only to international football ticket sales in order to bring about that intelligent and necessary recycling of funds.
One point I want to focus on, in what Mr Ford said, is that the Commission, he alleges, is sending out the message to organisers of Euro 2000 and maybe future World Cup competitions in the European Union that they can ignore the rules. The absolute opposite is taking place. I had already said ten minutes before Mr Ford spoke that the organisers of the Belgian and Netherlands European championship have been in touch with the Commission and not a single ticket will be sold on a discriminatory basis. They are already obeying the rules, setting the precedent, and, at all future times in the European Union, that will be the way in which affairs are conducted. The football supporters and supporters of other sports quite rightly will now know that they have the protection of the law and organisers of tournaments will know that they will be the object of real and heavy punishment if they break what are now known to be the rules.
This is the point. There was no knowledge of the rules. There is no case-law from the Court of Justice. There is no precedent of action by the European Commission. The money would have been taken out of football if there had been a heavier fine. There would have to be a further effort to levy fines against previous organisers. The fact is that CFO, who I do not paint as plaster saints, the moment that our investigation commenced, stopped the discriminatory sales. Everybody would have liked that to have occurred earlier, but it did happen. When Mr Watson says, therefore, that this is not the first time that organisers have rigged the sales, he may be right. But this is the first time that the legal competition authority has stopped the rigging, stopped the discriminatory sales and the first time that any competition authority in the world has prevented for all future time the use of discriminatory methods in the sale of tickets.
Mr Watson accepted my point when I said that this was a case where consumers were hit but the effect was not on the market as it is generally understood. I think he conceded that because he said that was my claim and the problem was that the reputation of Europe had suffered. I would put this point to him, a man for whom I have very high regard, as I do for the other participants in this debate: that reputation can only suffer if what has occurred is misrepresented. I know there is no-one in this House who will ever want to do that. I therefore appeal for attention to the facts. Whilst I fully understand and indeed, to a degree, share the passions about the way in which the big business of football so frequently now is operating in ways that contradict the interests of genuine football fans, I accept all that. I ask for fair treatment in this case as indeed in many others.
It was uncharacteristically unworthy of one honourable Member to say that he could understand why my colleague Mr Van Miert is not here because of the gravity of this case. If there has ever been a Commissioner in the forty-two year history of the European Union who has publicly demonstrated integrity and guts, it is Mr Van Miert. The reason he is not here this morning is because he has to attend to his work, not from any cowardice. It is infamous for anybody to even infer that is the reason for his absence."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples