Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-19-Speech-3-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081119.4.3-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is a shame that Mrs Harms is no longer present. After such an unorthodox attack – one which was pushing the limits of defamation – it would have been right to have allowed me the opportunity to answer her. I will now do so in writing. However, on behalf of the Commission, I reject in the most definite possible terms Mrs Harms’s claims in both style and substance.
That is unacceptable.
On the matter itself, the European motor industry is not on a medical drip. Some of the interventions gave the impression that what we are dealing with here is a sector that is either dependent on or is calling for subsidies. No subsidies are paid to the European motor industry, nor has it asked for any. Our entire industrial policy is, of course, based on the idea that we want to be independent of subsidies.
The only instrument available is low-interest credit from the European Investment Bank. Let me make it clear to everyone, however, exactly what that means – these credits are at interest rates that are perhaps around 1% below standard market rates. This is necessary in order to be able to finance the investments which, for example, you, as the European legislator, demand from the car makers, namely investments in modern, environmentally friendly technologies. That is why the European Investment Bank does this, and not only for the European motor industry. The impression has been given in this Chamber that the motor industry is the only European sector able to make use of this credit facility from the European Investment Bank. No, that is not the case. It crosses all sectors and is thus not at all specific to the motor industry. I would ask you all urgently to avoid giving out the impression in this House that the European motor industry is a destitute sector on a state-supplied drip. The industry is not on a drip, nor does it need to be, because in its technical position and its competitiveness, it is quite clearly the best-performing motor industry in the world. I am absolutely convinced that it will continue to be so.
We have been working for years – with the industry and with science – on developing the modern technologies of the future. In the context of the Seventh Framework Programme, we are spending a lot of money on this, and have been for a number of years. We are working intensively to ensure that the framework conditions for this industry are stable. It was the first industrial sector for which we developed a sectoral policy of this nature at all, and the reason for this was precisely the fact that we saw future problems facing this sector in good time.
On the case of Opel, I would like to reiterate: it is an absolutely exceptional, extraordinary situation that has nothing to do with the business policy of the company itself. This is exclusively the consequence of problems that arose in the United States of America which have an impact on Europe and for which we need to find an answer.
One final point – Mr Groote spoke about a subject of special interest to him, namely the ‘Volkswagen Law’. I am not of the belief that it would be a good idea to launch a European initiative with the aim of setting up similar statutory regulations for all European car makers. Hardly anyone else would agree with this idea, either. To my knowledge, Mr Groote, the Commission has not changed its view on this matter. Decisions can be expected soon, however."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples