Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-241"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.20.3-241"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, by presenting a report in September of last year on professional services under the heading ‘Scope for more reform’, the Commission has actually expanded on the report it had already drawn up back in 2004 on the topic of competition in professional services. Parliament expressed its views on this on the basis of the reports from 2001 and 2003. In March of this year, the Committee on Legal Affairs and this House again positioned themselves in relation to the special sector of legal professions.
What links all public discussions, between economists, as well as between Parliament and the Commission, is a significant phenomenon: all participants have extremely forthright opinions but are weak when it comes to figures. The figures which form the basis of the mainly sector-specific or national investigations largely date from the early 90s. The most recent investigation dates from the start of 2001. What unites all of the investigations, however, is the fact that they are either limited to specific sectors or nationally or that they are founded precisely on an empirical basis which basically goes so far back that it is barely suitable for generalisation purposes.
Viewed rationally, the economic importance of the services cannot be overestimated. 8% of European GDP is made up of business services, of which at least one third can be attributed to professional services. In this respect, and I believe that Parliament also welcomes this in the context of the Lisbon agenda, it is entirely justified asking what contribution this sector may make to growth and employment in Europe. It seemed important to us to not just approve the Lisbon agenda using nice speeches but to also get involved in this specific instance in the question as to what contribution liberalisation can make to growth.
The Commission should be commended in bringing some sort of order to a discussion which hitherto, I should say, has run wild. Basically, the Commission has made the following economic consideration: First of all, it has looked at six professions: lawyers, notaries, engineers, architects, pharmacists and accountants. It has defined five restrictions on competition (fixed prices, recommended prices, rules of competition, advertising rules and the entire gamete of entry restrictions, business structures and merger practices). The Commission has put forward four large categories of consumer for comparison purposes – public authorities, large enterprises, small- and medium-sized enterprises and private consumers – and then acknowledged that certain special regulations apply here given the presence of asymmetries – in the sphere of market transparency, as far as externalities are concerned, or on the issue as to what extent a public good is furnished here.
This rationalisation is welcomed. It enables discussions to proceed and makes it logical for Parliament to position itself in relation to this discussion at this time. For our part, we have tried, on the one hand, to lend a degree of support, but also, on the other, to contribute to differentiation as regards this discussion. First of all, it needs to be emphasised that there is a large amount of agreement on the theme of subsidiarity. The difficult task of achieving coordination between Member States on this subject will fall to the European Community. We have requested, on the other hand, and I consider this to be extremely important, also as a result of the discussion on the Services Directive, that the objectives of liberalisation are clearly named and empirical evidence produced too. What level of growth is expected from which liberalisations? What is the desired impact on employment? This also really needs to be stated in terms of figures, otherwise there will not be sufficient acceptance in the Member States. We have emphasised that we see self-administration having equal status vis-à-vis state regulation. We have said we believe that we must differentiate between this system. By way of example, we must distinguish between public authorities because there is a difference between whether a small community invites tenders or whether a nation state invites tenders for professional services. We have stated that whilst we recognise the geographical and traditional conditions, we view them as special regulations which do not obviate the necessity of continual analysis in these sectors as to what opportunities for liberalisation and growth exist there. We have stated in no uncertain terms that we consider special regulations regarding mergers and advertising to be dubious. We have stated that we want to differentiate clearly between certain restrictions on competition according to categories of consumers and finally, we have stated that in the very area of voluntariness, the voluntary Code of Conduct for professional services is very welcome indeed.
The crux of the matter is that we want to go back to the Commission saying that we welcome these observations. It must also be stated categorically, however, that rationalisation, further differentiation in these areas, is required. Only then will the necessary acceptance be achieved in the nation states."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples