Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-18-Speech-1-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070618.17.1-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Madam President, I am as impressed with the report as everyone who has already spoken. I greatly appreciate the report itself, but I appreciate even more the annual debates, particularly with the honourable Members present at this sitting.
I am always open to your suggestions for further improving the way in which competition policy makes markets function better. I badly need your ideas and your creativity. We are doing our utmost to complete this process, and I am grateful for your continued support and valuable contribution. We are not there yet but are on the right track.
The report itself makes a vital contribution to the further development of this policy. I would like to assure you that I am not only listening to you, but am taking many of your remarks – which make a lot of sense – into account. Indeed, if competition policy is to really deliver in creating growth and jobs in Europe, we need to continue working together. That means involving all the stakeholders – Parliament as well as the outside world – and taking into account the point touched upon by Sophia in 't Veld. It is not a matter of making fun of anyone but rather to set a level playing field in which everyone, both the consumer and the business world, may finally share the advantages.
I would like to respond to a few specific issues raised in our debate this evening. Mrs Berès had some interesting ideas for new sector inquiries and I will indeed consider the subjects she touched upon: rating agencies, auditing firms and large investment banks. We have not yet made up our minds and are still discussing the matter, so I will put this on the list. It is more a matter of resources than a lack of sectors in which it might make sense to start a sector inquiry. At present the Commission has no grounds for a wide-ranging review of competition in these particular sectors, but this does not mean that we cannot take a couple of thoughts out of it. I would welcome further discussion with Parliament on these issues. Of course, the Commission is always ready to look carefully at any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour which is brought to our attention in individual situations.
Mrs Berès also spoke about competition on non-traditional grounds, for example salaries. The report also mentions tax. I note that many of you are concerned by so-called tax competition among the Member States. It is correct that the Commission has powers to assess tax measures affecting competition. However, and I would like to make this quite clear, that is the case only when these measures are considered to be state aid and essentially when they are selective in nature, meaning that they do not constitute general measures.
I now come to the point that Sophia in 't Veld touched upon. For the last 10 years the Commission has been reviewing potentially harmful tax schemes. We have challenged a series of national measures targeting, amongst others, offshore intragroup activities.
As regards salary competition, my answer is quite clear: if measures relating to salaries can be considered as state aid, the Commission will use its powers.
Turning to state aid issues, in particular in reply to Sophia in 't Veld, state aid is in principle, as we are all aware, banned by the Treaty to avoid distortions of competition in our single market. State aid can indeed be a legitimate tool to deliver outcomes which are in the general interest, for example regional cohesion, research and development, as well as innovation and high-quality public services which markets themselves will not deliver. That is why our approach is to design a new set of state aid rules, which we did with the review. It uses a more economic approach to assess where market failures exist and to target appropriate aid measures on them. That is a balanced and a realistic view. It reflects the need to help Member States get the best out of taxpayers’ money – state aid is, at the end of the day, taxpayers’ money.
The Commission publishes its state aid scoreboards twice a year. As you are aware, this presents data and analyses of Member States’ expenditure on state aid measures. It includes a focus on Member States’ progress towards the Lisbon goals of less and better aid. The next edition will pay close attention to the question of recovery. In addition, a series of indicators and statistical tables on our Europa website gives scope for further discussion. But Sophia in 't Veld is right: we need to do more to evaluate the effects of state aid, whether it makes sense and how. That is how the new more economic approach could help us.
I can be brief in response to Mr García-Margallo y Marfil: we have discussed this before and we know exactly what the dossier is about. We have taken the Member State concerned to Court for not respecting our two Article 21 decisions under the Merger Regulation. My colleague, Charlie McCreevy, is taking parallel action under the internal market rules."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples