Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.11.1-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I sincerely hope you will not cut me off. Let me say that I am very happy with the statements of nearly everybody in this debate, especially the remarks that have been made about this portfolio. Competition policy is a challenge; indeed it is an instrument, a motor for achieving the Lisbon Agenda. I could not agree more with Mr De Rossa and Mrs van den Burg that we must deliver, within the framework of Europe, sustainable and full employment and social welfare; but at the end of the day we must also deliver more economic growth and more and better quality jobs.
Mr Hökmark and Mrs Ferreira raised the subject of mergers in the internal market. We are all aware that concerns have been expressed about the alleged upsurge of protectionism. It should be combated. I can understand it just a little, but it is not allowed and should not be tolerated. We should explain to those concerned that it is not in line with the decision we took on one internal market, one Europe, in which we are and will be in a better position to compete with the outside world. The Commission has significant powers under the Treaty to act as an independent and impartial referee to ensure that Member States fully respect the internal market rules and do not create unlawful obstacles to cross-border mergers. I can assure you that the Commission is firmly committed both to using these powers and to corporate restructuring in Europe. For that we need a united Europe.
It was rightly said that we must apply the rules of the game in the same way whether the team is playing at home or abroad. We have rules to respect and we have decisions to respect – the decisions taken in the past. We have to implement those decisions: one internal market and the Lisbon Agenda. Nearly all of you agreed that we should fight for that.
Turning now to a couple of details about competition policy, it was rightly mentioned that cartels are absolutely unacceptable and we must combat them. Where there is a near-monopoly, we have to realise that this does not benefit the consumer. People may argue that in the short term it is a pleasing situation, but I can assure you that a monopoly or near-monopoly will not be very keen to spend money in areas like research or innovation. Yet we badly need that type of investment. Why? Because we have to compete on the global stage, because we need to be aware that competitors from outside Europe are investing in depth in research, in innovation, and in their competitiveness. So, Mr Evans rightly referred to the need for fair treatment, for a bilateral but not unbalanced approach: if we are behaving ourselves, the others should behave as well. It is a question of the competitiveness of Europe.
I really appreciate your interest in competition policy. The Commission informs you of all the major policy initiatives in this area and, of course, I pay attention to all the opinions of Parliament. We may not agree completely at every moment, on every subject, every dossier; I do not agree with a couple of remarks that were made this evening because the way they were put does not reflect the truth and is not realistic. But I will come back to that in more detail.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed by the rapporteur, by the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and by all other Members. I would like to add a few words in response to specific issues. On international cooperation, I think that in a global market competition is very important and the competition authorities need to be in line. Regarding a European network, I am really impressed by the European competition network and those concerned are doing an extremely good job. We can still learn from each other and we still need to realise that the time has passed for national policy. At the end of the day we have one internal market. It is about two-way traffic. Mr McCreevy and I are buddies and we need to tackle all the barriers that have to be tackled.
In relation to Microsoft, which was touched upon by a couple of Members, the Commission is actively pursuing the implementation of the March 2004 decision. I accept, of course, remarks that do not agree with my line, but to say that we are not transparent, that we are not listening to all the questions and remarks, is not the truth. Since March 2004, there has been a decision, which has rightly been mentioned and discussed; I have done so myself with the head of Microsoft. With regard to Professor Neil Barrett, a very highly respected advisor to the Commission, he was indeed appointed by the Commission, but the list he headed came from Microsoft. He is very well-known for his knowledge and independence and to put it in quite clear language, he is the bridge between Microsoft and the Commission. He is indeed the advisor. But when we took the decision in December 2005, the statement of objections – which included a preliminary finding that Microsoft had not delivered what it had promised, that its obligation under the March 2004 decision did not take the form we were expecting – was not made public because of issues relating to certain procedures, protectionism and the legitimate interest of all parties. The hearing was an opportunity to have what I hope was a fruitful debate and every participant in it was given the floor. This is not only about Microsoft; there are complainants elsewhere and there are a couple of other really interesting American companies.
So Microsoft is not the only interesting company from the United States: there are a couple of other interesting companies that have lodged complaints with me. Therefore, without a doubt, I had to act and to react. I hope that will clarify the situation when we come to discuss what was talked about last Thursday and Friday. Another hearing – the Court hearing – will take place in Luxembourg on 24-28 April 2006. Once we have discussed what was talked about last week, we will come to a conclusion as soon as possible.
Mrs Berès mentioned Mittal’s bid for Arcelor. She should read it and she promised me she would, so let me be precise: the announcement of Mittal’s bid for Arcelor has attracted a great deal of attention not only in the media but also in some European capitals. The operation has not yet been formally notified to the Commission. If and when it is, the Commission will examine it very carefully and impartially and will conduct a wide-ranging investigation to assess its possible impact on the steel industry in Europe.
It is the responsibility of the Commission, the Commissioner and the services involved always to look very carefully and impartially at all cases. Size and nationality in itself is not a factor in making our decisions. The question is whether a decision can be taken and whether things can be done in the way requested by the parties, or whether there should be remedies. We will be looking at that.
Let me turn to the merger regulation and competence for cases under the two-thirds rule, which a couple of Members mentioned. At the moment we are asking the Member States for information. Once we have received that information we will have a debate and dialogue with those Member States and will try to reach conclusions. The rules and decisions were made in the 1980s and were right for that time, but since then, fortunately, the internal market has developed. I am aware that the internal market is not yet complete, we still have quite a lot of work to do and the four main freedoms still need to be achieved. At that time the two-thirds rule was the correct instrument, but now we have to consider whether it is still appropriate in that area. In certain sectors we need to ensure a balance and equal treatment, and there should be transparency regardless of the country in which a merger takes place. Brussels must ensure equal treatment, whatever the background to a merger might be."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples