Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.8.3-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the present draft directive amending Directive 80/723/EEC resolves an important issue to do with competition policy, namely the fact that the government has been obliged to disclose its links with public undertakings. That is nothing new. This directive has been in force since 1980 and it is certainly high time that it was revised, because it is out-of-date in many aspects on account of the liberalisation process. But the question is this: if this fundamental amendment is approved, are the Commission’s proposals heading in the right direction?
I intend to raise several points and would ask the Commissioner to examine and take account of them once again when it comes to producing the final version of the transparency directive: Firstly, the exemption regulation for small- and medium-sized enterprises, which, since 1980, has included those businesses having a turnover of less than EUR 40 million. Since then, the turnover indices have increased many times over. It is therefore necessary, and would make good sense, to raise the threshold to EUR 100 million.
Secondly, the recently introduced balance limit for public credit institutions of EUR 800 million, which did not exist before. These credit institutions were completely excluded hitherto. EUR 800 million is nothing at all! In my previous national parliament electoral constituency of 70 000 inhabitants, the savings bank, which only operates on a regional basis, actually had a balance of EUR 1.5 billion! It would not be right to create a new opportunity for the Commission to step in.
Thirdly: separate accounting. Hitherto, it was only the Member States who were obliged to report on their financial activities. Now the undertakings themselves are going to have to produce separate accounts. Surely this is motivated purely by the fact that the Commission would like another instrument of control.
Fourthly: the definition of services of general economic interest. These services will only be excluded – just listen to this – if the undertakings are given special or exclusive rights in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure for an appropriate period of time, i.e. after a tender procedure. What about the social services? What about the traditionally evolved social activities? Professor Monti, I do not want to give the Commission carte blanche to be able to interfere in anything and everything. We trust you not to want to control everything, Professor Monti, but I very much doubt as to whether we can say the same of every last official!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples