Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001023.9.1-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner Monti, on behalf of the Italian Radicals, I too would like to thank the rapporteurs for the two sound reports they have produced, which commend both your work and the work of the Directorate-General for Competition.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few general points regarding European competition policies and also the competitiveness and opening-up of the European markets, not in order to deny any progress made thusfar, but with a view to the future.
In my opinion, a particularly regrettable factor, if we want a genuinely open and competitive market economy to develop, is still the presence of large numbers of powerful public companies in sectors which have already been formally liberalised or which are currently going through this process. I could mention, for example ... let me see ... the State monopoly of retirement pensions, but I will restrict myself, more pertinently, to firms operating in the sectors of general interest services. It is my view that, in these sectors, competition and the market are being severely hampered by the fact that the State is both regulator and operator.
I know, Commissioner, because I have had occasion to read and hear your views on the matter, that your response to the objections is that the articles of the Treaties do not provide for any distinction between the public or private nature of firms. However, we cannot be satisfied with this response if we want Europe to become a more competitive and more open market in the future and – dare I say it – if we study carefully certain situations which are developing
in which even the current rules would allow us to intervene. The whole of Europe is experiencing the growth of an aggressive State capitalism which has resulted in a series of private companies being taken over by State monopolies or former monopolies, in any case by companies which are firmly in public hands, companies which are State-owned. We have heard the justification many times; it is always ready to be trotted out – we must ensure that our companies and their assets retain their value through the privatisation process – meanwhile privatisation generally becomes more and more delayed instead of facilitated. And, naturally, these are clearly statements to which the ears of the various Ministers for the Treasury in Europe are extremely sensitive. In all cases, these are public companies whose financial prowess derives from their past and present positions of monopoly rather than managerial expertise. In many cases, they are companies which operate entirely or in part with considerable legal monopolistic reserves.
Truly, Commissioner, can we not perceive in these cases the existence of State aid, concealed to a greater or lesser extent, or abuse of a dominating position? Or again, the transfer at the very least of the distorting effects of the dominating position from one sector to another? Or, lastly, the ever increasing consolidation of the positions of the incumbents which will make it difficult for newcomers to enter the various markets after liberalisation? By way of example
has recently gained control of
and is operating under a monopoly for dispatches up to 200 grams, and then, on a more general note, we could cite the diversification of the State postal companies in other sectors; EDF
has taken over companies in Britain, Sweden and Finland
has taken over
; on the Italian side of things
and, still in the Italian context, we could mention the various companies owned by local authorities which are behaving in a similar fashion. Lastly, Commissioner, there is the case of the public financing of State television under the alibi of financing a public service, which is a concept that is fading fast.
Of course, there is the Treaty of Amsterdam, but I wonder whether the constraints imposed by the governments on the excellent work of your predecessor should, in any case, be justified as a way of exempting these companies from European competition rules."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Eléctricité de France)"1
"France Telecom"1
"Infostrada"1
"Orange"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples