Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.6.2-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on a subject of great economic, social, institutional and political importance.
Mr Pasqua - who appears to have left the Chamber - said that he is not prepared to place blind trust in the Commission. I would point out, if I may, that, even if he were prepared to do so, the Commission would not want blind trust to be placed in it at all. It is extremely important that the Commission acts in close cooperation with Parliament and in accordance with Parliament’s basic guidelines and, in any case, in particular in these matters, under the strict control of the judicial authority based in Luxembourg.
Mr Pasqua, too, mentioned the need for a clear industrial policy for Europe. President Prodi and the Commission as a whole, all the Commissioners, are reflecting on the effects of the deindustrialisation of Europe, which we all feel cannot be dealt with just by giving the Member States licence to breach competition rules or state aid legislation.
Mr Abitbol talked of the ‘
. Quite frankly, I do not believe it is a matter of any particular
nor that it has received
. Then, as regards to the difference between the professions of notary and
I do not think it is at all relevant: they are both, in any case, occupations, professions, which deserve the greatest respect, as, I believe, does the job of European Commissioner.
Mr Abitbol’s comment on European Commission decisions which have allegedly harmed the development of French industry is interesting: interesting and curious, for I always mention France in my speeches as an example of a country whose industry has benefited greatly while observing European competition rules.
Here are some examples, Mr Abitbol - and I am addressing Mr Berthu, too, here – of cases in which French companies, with the authorisation of the European Commission, have succeeded in becoming either French national industry leaders or European industry leaders or world industry leaders. These are genuine examples, and I will confine myself to mentioning cases from recent years.
the result of a merger authorised by the Commission, has become a major industry leader, to say the least, in France, as has
. The merger in the field of nuclear plant engineering between
and
created
which a number of Members have mentioned this evening, a major European industry leader, and, thanks to the then Managing Director, Francis Mère, the
group, with the authorisation of the Commission, merged successfully with other European iron and steel companies to create
which is not the European industry leader but the world industry leader, the largest iron and steel group operating in the world today. I therefore believe that it is possible to reconcile consumer protection, which is the primary task of competition policy, with the creation of large structures which can compete at international level. In this, therefore, I agree with Mr Berthu that we need to have a global vision for global markets, although not, of course, where the markets are still national or local.
Mr Lange described the European Commission’s attitude as ‘arrogant and dogmatic’ – I believe these were the words he used. I would not presume to disagree with him if this is his opinion; I think I have explained today and on other occasions how and why we act as we do, and that we are convinced that our work is not so
much based purely on legal formalism but on the need to give the European economy strong foundations and to ensure respect for rules, not least as a principle of democratic peaceful coexistence, if I may use that term, at European level.
As Mr Konrad rightly pointed out, the European Union is a community of law – I do not feel this is a pejorative term – which is founded on respect for rules in a number of fields, and since the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties, I believe that it also has a duty to ensure that they are observed. Mr Konrad pointed out that, ultimately, state aid often leads to loss of money without bringing any significant tangible benefits.
At the same time, Mr Cashman is in favour of aid to the
group, provided that this does not harm the British workers. This would appear to be a very respectable position on the matter, taking a specific point of view. Our task is to attempt to preserve the jobs of the employees of the
group by facilitating a restructuring plan and, at the same time, while preventing excessively serious distortions to trade, to stop the employees of competing firms from losing their jobs. This is the task of state aid control. Of course, the loss of currently existing jobs from a specific area is always going to have a higher profile than the other jobs we manage to save elsewhere in Europe by ensuring respect for the rules. In any case, I can assure you that the preservation and expansion of employment is something to which the Commission attaches great importance.
Mr Harbour asked me some actually very specific questions, in particular whether the Commission will have to decide, I imagine in the context of concentration control, whether the sale of
’s transmission and distribution division to
is to take place quickly. If that task falls to us, I can assure you that we will decide quickly for, as Mr Harbour knows, the regulation on concentration control in Europe, unlike that in force in the United States, for example, lays down extremely short, unextendable deadlines for such decisions.
I have to apologise, for I am not qualified to comment on the issue of the Birmingham establishment or on the varying degrees of dependence of the different Member States on foreign manufacturers in the purchase of railway rolling stock.
I would like to start by thanking Mr Karas for expressing his full support for the Commission’s work: he mentioned the new draft Constitution and the Lisbon strategy. I believe that we must also take note of the fact that, whenever the Heads of State or Government meet in the European Council, they send out clear calls for state aid to be cut and channelled into horizontal objectives rather than into supporting any particular sectors or businesses. Therefore, it is not just the fantasies of the European Commissioners that are taking this direction. Mr Karas also pointed out – and I agree with him fully – that competition is, although not the only factor, of course, an essential element in the social market economy.
I will end, Mr President, with a simple observation. If we look back at cases of state aid authorised by the Commission for restructuring plans and at the occasions when it was employed, we see that, in many of those cases, the state aid did not help: in other words, those companies, those jobs, were not saved in spite of the state aid. In those - numerous – cases, the end result was, nevertheless, job losses, plant closures and, what is more, increased taxation to replenish the state coffers, affecting taxpayers.
That is why the matter before us is not an easy one to resolve. I can assure you that the Commission will endeavour to exercise due control with all due responsibility. Thank you very much for your thoughtful contributions to this debate, both those expressing support and those expressing criticism.
Mr Wurtz, thank you for pointing out the different occasions – 1999, February 2000 – on which the trade unions brought to the attention of the European Parliament
the deterioration of
’s financial situation and position within the industry. This helps us to place the issue in its historical and chronological context and to eliminate the over-simplified view – expressed by some malicious rumourmongers in recent days - that it is the European Commission who will be responsible for any unemployment problems.
I, too, Mr Wurtz, am extremely sensitive to the need for the trade unions to be fully informed and made aware of these issues, just as the public authorities need to be aware of how the trade unions are coping with them. I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing to your request for a meeting with the
and I can tell you that I have, in any case, already agreed to a request for a meeting which is to take place in the next few days with the European Trade Union Federation, to which this association belongs.
Mr Wurtz, together with almost all the speakers - Mr Lipietz, Mr Pasqua, Mr Savary and others - mentioned the need for a European industrial policy. I hope I will not cause offence if I say that I fully agree with them. A European industrial policy is something which has as a foundation stone, as an essential component, the promotion of a single market under conditions of competition. Please let us not create confusion by saying that the single market and competition are contrary to the requirements of an industrial policy. An industrial policy needs other things as well, but if you ask French, German or Italian entrepreneurs what the European Union’s essential contribution is to their industrial activities and their expansion and export activities, etc., they will reply: the single market, a single market in which the conditions for competition are preserved.
Of course, other things are necessary too, and, in the Commission, I always support the initiatives of Commissioner Liikanen, Commissioner Busquin and the Vice-President, Mrs De Palacio, seeking to find other ways of boosting Europe’s industrial development, but I feel that it would be an extremely serious error to think that we can further industrial policy by eating away at the foundations of the single market and competition.
Mr Wurtz said that the Commission has discretionary power in the field of competition which is not subject to control. Mr Pasqua provided part of the answer when he pointed out that there have been cases in which judicial control, which always applies to all Commission decisions, including in the field of competition, has rejected some of the European Commission’s decisions. The Commission certainly does not claim to be infallible and still less do I. Our actions are subject to two levels of judicial control: the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice. In the great majority of cases, these judicial bodies rule in favour of the Commission’s decision; in others, they do not.
With regard to political legitimacy, Mr Wurtz, decisions relating to competition policy are taken in the individual Member States at national level by bodies which do not have the political legitimacy which the European Commission has conferred on it at European level by the European Parliament, in particular, with individual hearings for each Commissioner.
Mr Lipietz made a number of points relating to French internal politics, on which I do not believe he expects me to express an opinion. I welcome the support given by both the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and by Mr Lipietz, personally, as he has stated on many occasions, to competition policy as an essential tool for consumer protection. By the way, I would like to say that one of the tasks of competition policy is, without a doubt, to guarantee a secure supply of products, and there is even a specific legal instrument, what is known as ‘failing company defence’, which makes it possible for the potential disappearance of operators from the market, which could jeopardise security of supply, to be taken into account in competition policy decisions. It is not, therefore, such an inflexible, blinkered policy as might be imagined at first glance."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Alstom"1
"Arriva"1
"Carrefour-Promodes"1
"Coordination syndicale Alstom"1
"Maton"1
"Total-Fina-Elf"1
"Usinor"1
"blessures"1
"huissier"1
"orgueil"1
"orgueil blessé d'un commissaire européen’"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples