Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.6.3-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. You have now received the praises of three Members and it will probably come as a surprise to you when I join them in their praises. Yes, I too must compliment you on having basically made a move in the right direction with this initiative, because the old block exemption regulation, for all its good points, is quite simply and painfully out of date. It has proven to have so many shortcomings that we really do need to make a clean sweep here. But you also resisted the temptation to say, let us do away with the block exemption regulation altogether. No, you have submitted a proposal which, to my mind, really does have a great deal to commend it: multiple brand sales, for example, the abolition of the compulsory linking of sales and servicing, which can now be unbundled, more independent workshops, independent spare part manufacturers and much more besides. On balance, this is the way towards more competition as the consumer understands it. But, surprise, surprise, the devil is in the detail and needless to say, fault can be found on a few counts. But, let me be perfectly clear, we are talking about details and I think, after a long debate in committee, we have reached a good compromise in several areas, for which we have the rapporteur to thank.
However, I must say, Commissioner, as you know, I have reservations on one point and that is the location clause. As I am sure you realise, there are several ways of looking at this clause. You say – the Commission says – that what is being proposed here is good for competition and will slash prices. I have my doubts. I wonder if what is being proposed really is competition and if it really will improve competition. Because what is being proposed here means quite simply that manufacturers will pick and choose and limit the number of sales. From that point of view, there is little difference in comparison with the old system, except that they really will be able to compete with each other. What sounds perfectly plausible and reasonable to start with may harbour a huge risk; because it is a closed circle, the big fish will be able to eat up the little fish.
That is what worries me; that the end result will be that the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sales sector will be the first to go, eaten up by the large companies and resulting in more concentration even more quickly than is presently the case. That may cause prices to rise again at a later date, due to a lack of competition. That is why we have not suggested doing away with the whole idea. What we are saying is, let us include it in the regulation but postpone it. Then we really can look at it again in the light of specific events and decide whether or not to stick with it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples