Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.8.1-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, first of all I should like to thank the honourable Members of the European Parliament, who have been very consistent in following this file.
I have a few comments. Interestingly, a couple of studies have been carried out recently which compared levels of productivity growth and development in the EU and in the United States. One was conducted under the leadership of Professor van Ark of Groningen University. There, they have studied the industrial and service sectors, trying to spot the areas in which the gaps between the EU and the US have been narrowing and widening. The communications sector is one area in which Europe has done better than the United States.
The latest issue of the Harvard Business Review came up with the same conclusion. Even though only two reference countries were used – France and Germany – productivity growth in Europe has been about 15% faster than it has in the United States over the last five years. Therefore, the liberalisation of telecommunications within our regulatory framework has provided a real boost for innovation and competition. I am also sure that investment into research and development has been very helpful. All this shows that the right pressure for competition and a push for innovation also boosts productivity growth, which is a major benefit for the whole sector.
Second, on future issues, I agree with Mr Clegg that in the long term, facilities-based competition encourages investment. The big challenge in applying these regulations will be how to build a bridge from service-based competition to facilities-based competition. The only way to do it consistently is via the opening-up of legacy networks, which have hitherto been financed under monopoly conditions. Where the opening-up of networks will require future investment and may involve risks, these risks must be properly assessed.
Mr Herzog made a very interesting comment. It is very clear that we need both ex ante and ex post regulation. Ex ante regulation should be used in cases such as universal services, when there is strong public interest, but once markets are fully competitive, then reasons for broad ex ante regulation will essentially diminish. Regulation is not the purpose here. The purpose is high-quality services for the citizens at competitive prices.
Finally, Mrs Gill, as far as our measures on the implementation of the regulation are concerned, the Commission is extremely strict when it exercises its role as guardian of the Treaties. The infringement procedure has three phases. The first is the letter of formal notice, which we have sent out. We are waiting for the reply. When we have received it, we will produce a letter giving a reasoned opinion. If we are not happy with the reply we will take the Member State to court. We will be extremely cool and objective in applying these principles, so there is no reason for concern in this respect.
I also noted the comments of both Mrs Read and Mr Clegg on the accession countries. I am ready to have another look at this and will be happy to discuss that issue another time."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples