Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.8.3-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I congratulate the European Parliament on the major work accomplished during the debate on the Randzio-Plath report. I would particularly like to thank Parliament for the support it has shown for the Commission’s initiative and I welcome its approval of the steps to increase transparency in the use of public resources and thereby guarantee fair competition. You welcomed the Commission’s consultation of Parliament, despite the fact that it was not obliged to do this under its institutional statutes as Mr Jonckheer and other speakers recalled. Moreover, the way the debate went reassures me that it was useful for the Commission and in the best interests of the initiative for Parliament to be consulted.
The size of company is irrelevant, and I am now addressing Mr Langen
: the EUR 40 million threshold excludes small- and medium-sized businesses. If we were to raise this threshold we would be excluding companies where, due to their size, we cannot suppose that the aid does not affect trade between Member States. In any case, in order to give an idea of the size, only 0.2% of all non-farming enterprises in the Community are above this threshold.
Finally, I would like to say – and it appears that this has been perfectly well understood by the Members of Parliament – that this directive is not in the slightest an attack on public companies. Quite the opposite, to be honest, I see it as a great show of support
for public companies. This is because it provides clarity and therefore does not expose public services to the attacks which would otherwise have been levelled at them. As Mr Olle Schmidt stressed, this transparency is essential not only for a proper application of competition policy but, indeed, if I may say so, it is also crucial for there to be a proper relationship between the authorities and the taxpayers, the citizens.
I therefore feel that, although, as Mrs Peijs stressed, this directive may appear extremely tedious, it actually allows us to get to the heart of the issue, not only of competition but also of civil coexistence and economic democracy.
As it stands, the directive on transparency gives the Commission the authority to carry out inquiries into financial relations between Member States and their public undertakings. In short, the draft amendment to the directive is intended to ensure the introduction of separate accounting procedures for specific types of firms. The firms affected by this measure are those which, on the one hand, provide services of general economic interest in exchange for various different types of compensation, which may be special dues or payments, and, on the other, also perform normal general activities, thereby operating in competition with other firms. Clearly, the profits generated by the continuation of reserved activities or by compensation provided for reasons of general interest or public service are not intended to finance competitive activities, and must therefore not give rise to internal subsidies.
However, in recent years, the Commission has had to examine a growing number of claims related precisely to such internal compensation. As Mrs Peijs mentioned, in the course of its inquiries, the Commission has had to examine these cases of internal compensation and it was frequently unable to obtain sufficient information regarding the costs and profits generated by the various activities. Therefore, the Commission now proposes to introduce a system of separate accounts for these types of companies which will allow them to perform their role as surety for competition properly.
I would also like to stress that the obligation to keep separate accounts also benefits the Member States, in that it provides them with the necessary information in order to avoid granting state aid which does not comply with the Treaty and to notify the Commission of the aid envisaged.
The directive requires that companies which provide general services and which, at the same time, operate outside that public service mission, keep separate accounts. This requirement applies to both private and public companies. The directive does not apply to companies which only provide general services and do not carry on any other activity, nor does it require the separation of different activities which all come under the heading of general services.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the directive is intended to make the areas around the line between services of general interest and other activities transparent with the minimum of disruption.
I would like to emphasise the fact that the directive makes no changes either, of course, to the provisions of the Treaty on the awarding of general services, or to the awarding of the management of these services to specific companies. The directive lays down the principles for the introduction of greater transparency, although, in observance of the subsidiarity principle, it leaves the Member States free to adopt appropriate national measures.
I would now like to turn to some of the comments made. Mr Jonckheer wondered whether Internet access was to be included in the universal service. On this point, I can only say that the last Telecommunications Council did hold a debate on this matter.
As regards the doubts expressed by the rapporteur, Mrs Randzio-Plath, I would briefly like to summarise them.
On the subject of the definition of general services, I would stress once again that the directive does not make any changes, it does not reduce the current competences of the Member States – Mrs Berès and Mr Langen – regarding the definition of public interest. This also applies to the public broadcasting sector, in respect of which the Amsterdam Protocol confirmed the competence of the Member States in the definition of the admission of public service. Mrs Berès, Mr Jonckheer, Mr Crowley, Mr Skinner and Mrs Maes remarked that it might be possible to exclude broadcasting. I have to say that this sector could well be among the fields where the directive is most frequently applied, where this directive on transparency is of most service, for, even taking the Amsterdam Protocol into account, of course, this nevertheless leaves the Commission with the task of verifying that aid granted for the provision of public services is not excessive in respect of the costs. A requirement for verification therefore remains, and this directive should be useful for this purpose."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples