Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.6.3-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this draft regulation is the product of a lengthy, in-depth process analysing the situation in the motor vehicle sector. In its November 2000 evaluation report, the Commission concluded that the current system had not yielded the intended results and that, therefore, it could not be preserved in its current form. The main goals of the future system are therefore clear: it must, first and foremost, promote the interests of the consumer, introducing greater competition and not just in the sale of new vehicles but in repair and maintenance services as well. In addition, the draft regulation seeks to guarantee the smooth functioning of the internal market in new cars. It is unacceptable, ladies and gentlemen, for cars, which are the very symbol of mobility, to continue to be one of the least mobile commodities on the internal market.
As regards multi-branding, one of the draft’s key objectives is to make it genuinely possible for dealers to sell different brands if they so choose. The draft seeks to make multi-branding easier for dealers while still protecting the brand images in which manufacturers have invested, thus facilitating consumers’ freedom of choice and increasing competition between brands. I agree that the brand image is the most important competition tool for vehicle manufacturers, but there is no justification for requiring separate showrooms or different staff for different brands and this would remove the financial advantage of multi-branding for dealers. I would also point out that multi-branding is particularly important for small dealers especially, for it can help them to establish themselves and survive in rural areas. It would not be right to leave this aspect to the two parties to negotiate while dealers are financially completely dependent on their suppliers. To strengthen the position of dealers, therefore, we must give them the facility to decide whether to display different brands of vehicles in separate areas of the same showroom or whether to display them in separate showrooms, and whether to employ different sales personnel for each brand.
I feel, moreover, that Parliament should agree on the need to protect dealers in the way the Commission has proposed: the minimum period of notice and the obligation to provide detailed reasons for termination of a contract are intended to strengthen the position of dealers.
The draft regulation also seeks to alter the, at present, extremely close link between the sale of new vehicles and after sales services. A dealer can choose whether to focus its activity purely on selling vehicles or whether to provide after sales services as well: this right strengthens its independence. Since after sales services can only be subcontracted to authorised repairers, a high level of quality and safety is guaranteed. In my opinion, in its original form, the Commission’s draft already ensures that there will be a service point near a dealer where the dealer subcontracts the activity, but, in the light of the amendments put forward in this regard, a solution could be to require the dealer to inform the consumer of the distance of the premises of the authorised repairer from the sales outlet as well as the location. I must stress that it is particularly important to make the link between sales and after sales services less binding in a period when networks of dealers are being restructured and their numbers reduced. Dealers whose agreements are terminated can now remain in the market as authorised repairers. In view of this and in order to safeguard the consumer interest of having a wider network of service centres, it would be a mistake to limit the number of authorised repairers.
Lastly, I broadly endorse the amendments intended to increase access to technical information and to clarify the definition of spare parts.
By way of conclusion, Mr President, I have noted and I welcome the favourable attitude of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to the approach taken by the Commission. I have told you where I stand with regard to the main amendments proposed by the committee and I would ask the Members to be so good as to take these considerations into account when they vote. The very fact that the Economic Committee’s report broadly supports the line taken by the Commission is evidence that Parliament is not giving any heed to the black picture painted by the lobbyists who presented the Commission’s draft as some sort of disaster. You might remember that there were similar reactions when the Commission opposed continuing duty free. It was said that we would cause 140 thousand job losses. Considerable political pressure was exerted at high levels then too and there was a huge lobby. The Commission refused to be influenced by the pressure. Duty free was abolished, to the benefit of the taxpayer, and there was absolutely no disaster.
I would like to thank the Members for this dialogue. I would also like to thank them personally for their appreciation. Some of you have described our actions as courageous. I am much obliged, but I really do not think that working to promote the citizens’ interests is being courageous. If I might express my personal opinion, I am sure that the citizens, your electorate, expect Parliament to be at least equally courageous.
In the past, the Commission has had to fine vehicle manufacturers which have blocked parallel trade. These practical cases show how consumers have been deprived of the benefit, of the right to choose where they purchase vehicles. In this sense, I would stress that the Commission’s aim is not to harmonise prices as such, but it does have the further-reaching, more fundamental goal of guaranteeing the smooth functioning of the internal market and, in particular, of allowing consumers to purchase vehicles directly or indirectly wherever they are cheaper. Lastly, independent dealers and repairers will benefit from the new package of rules for it will consolidate their financial independence and provide them with new commercial opportunities.
The reactions of consumer associations, automobile associations, spare parts manufacturers’ associations and independent repairers’ associations to the Commission’s draft regulation have been very positive. They feel that such a reform is definitely in the interests of European consumers. Indeed, some of their reactions say that the draft regulation does not go far enough. The leaders of European industry are continuously calling upon the European institutions to promote liberalisation and flexibility as the basic ingredients for a more competitive economy which will boost growth and employment. The draft regulation was conceived according to this approach, consistently advocated by European industry, which the Commission fully supports.
We are therefore surprised by the heavy lobbying against the draft regulation by a number of interest groups associated with the industry. The veritable twisting of facts and simply erroneous statements which have sometimes been produced in relation to the draft regulation are regrettable. They are in contrast with the availability and openness to dialogue shown by the Commission towards all the interested parties.
We are fully convinced of the benefits which will be derived from the new regulation. It takes into account the specific nature of motor vehicles as a product. The new regulation seeks to ensure that vehicles are safe products, that they are provided with very reliable after sales services and that they respect environmental standards. We must have confidence – we do have confidence – in the many highly competent dealers who will take the appropriate commercial decisions. Ultimately, they are the ones who are most familiar with consumers’ needs and they are the ones who run the commercial risks.
I welcome the in-depth debates that have taken place on the Commission draft regulation in the European Parliament, particularly in the context of the discussions on Mr Conrad’s report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and I too have found the dialogue extremely useful and constructive. I have taken note of your comments and I welcome the fact that the report adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs broadly supports the general lines advocated by the Commission, particularly with regard to the need to change the current system.
I will now focus briefly on the most important draft amendments contained in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. One of the most important elements of our new system is the prohibition of use of the location clause. This is the linchpin of the system and it is necessary for the other measures to be fully effective too. The abolition of this clause applying to vehicle sales, which will allow dealers to open secondary sales and delivery outlets in other areas, including in other Member States, is essential to facilitate consumer access to vehicles sold by dealers from other Member States at lower prices. This will increase competition between dealers selling the same brand of car and encourage market integration, making multi-brand sales possible too. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proposes to establish a transition period for this measure – the abolition of the location clause – lasting until 1 October 2005 and to make abolition of the location clause dependent upon the results of an assessment. I realise that the transition period would allow both manufacturers and dealers to prepare themselves and to adapt to the new system, but I feel frankly that it would be detrimental, extremely detrimental to postpone a decision on abolishing the location clause until a future assessment.
It is not advisable to prolong a state of uncertainty regarding the future system; rather, we need to establish clear rules right from the word go, or else – we have to admit – this transition period would serve no purpose: the operators would not know which future system to adapt themselves to and it follows that they would not make any preparations for the entry into force of the new rules. It would not be a transition: it would, let us be quite clear about this, be a mere waiting period, a period of waiting for a new Parliament and a new Commission in order to decide on the future motor vehicle distribution system in Europe. As one of you has said, it would be an excuse to put off the decision indefinitely. The Commission believes that we must shoulder this responsibility as of now. We cannot continuously declare that we want a European Union that is closer to the citizens – how many times have I heard that said in this House and how I agree with it – and then, when the time comes to take decisions, fail to behave accordingly.
That aside, as I said to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I am prepared to consider whether a longer transition period than that laid down in the draft regulation might be appropriate, but purely with regard to the location clause. Nevertheless, we must not forget that, if we extend the transition period, we will also be putting off the time when consumers will be able to benefit from the new system."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples