Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.11.3-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it will not have escaped the attention of those involved in this issue that those members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs who are also members of the Group of the Party of European Socialists have voted against the final report. I think this is very regrettable, because, as it has been stated here before, it is indeed an excellent report and the rapporteur has done a good job. The situation was such, however, that the amendments tabled by our group had simply not received any support from other groups. This is why it was difficult for us to vote in favour. We have re-tabled some of those amendments in this plenary, for we have really whittled them down to what we think was really essential and necessary. I sincerely hope that other groups, particularly the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which has taken our side on issues of this kind in the past, are prepared to re-consider this carefully, so that we can vote in favour of this report wholeheartedly and without any reservations.
I will explain the kind of amendments they are, and I want to demonstrate why these, in our view, are perfectly in keeping with the Lisbon agenda. The guiding principle underlying the Lisbon agenda is that policy must become more coherent so as to promote greater competitiveness, sustainable growth, employment and social cohesion. This means that we have to abandon the three-pillars structure and ensure that policy adopted in the various directorates-general and in the various councils of ministers is also in line with our other objectives. Consideration should in this respect also be given to the required cohesion of policy.
Consequently, with regard to the regulation on concentrations, we would particularly draw your attention to two aspects.
First of all, the assessment should consider aspects other than competition in the narrow sense of the word. In our amendment, we explicitly call for considerations with regard to the contribution that concentrations can make to improved production and marketing systems, to international competitiveness, to consumer interests and to the creation of jobs and the employment situation in general. This is thus a reasonably wide definition, and one that is capable of offering the necessary flexibility and room for manoeuvre. Amendment No 37 contains words to this effect.
The second aspect is about a serious and fully-fledged consultation of employee representatives within the procedures. Particularly Amendments Nos 40 and 41 concern this topic. In current practice, employee councils or trade union representatives are heard only at their explicit request, that is, if they have at their disposal information that tells them that a concentration or merger is in progress. Then there is the question of whether their arguments will be addressed seriously if they are consulted about the employment and social implications of the proposed merger. This ties in with the other amendment I mentioned.
They should be called upon by the authorities not only to gain an insight into the market positions and competitive risks, but it should also be possible to have serious discussions about those other effects. This should form a standard component of the procedure and this is what we hope our amendments will achieve. I truly hope that this will be re-considered in the other groups. I would already like to thank Mr Olle Schmitt for his support for part of these amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples