Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-08-Speech-1-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100308.20.1-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, dear colleagues – also those who are leaving the room right now – this report was adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and it is the fruit of a joint effort of all political groups. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs – who are still present as far as I can see – for their excellent cooperation.
On substance, the Commission proposals allow for discrimination against online retailers who do not have a bricks-and-mortar shop. I have used my prerogative as a rapporteur for tabling an amendment asking the Commission to correct this situation. In the 21st century, we must encourage, not stifle, competition from online retailers. We call on the Commission to put consumer interests over vested interests.
We ask the Commission to carry out the long overdue sector inquiries, in particular, into online advertising, which this House has requested several times. If the Commission does not wish to do so, we would like to understand the criteria for refusing.
Finally, Commissioner, we very much welcome Commissioner Almunia’s pledge to closely involve Parliament in shaping competition policies. The economic crisis has clearly shown the need for greater democratic legitimacy of competition policies and, in this context, I assume that the incident with the document on vertical restraints was just a mistake. We recognise the independence of the Commission – and, as a liberal, I certainly do so – but we also expect the Commission to closely involve Parliament in shaping competition policies along the lines set out in the report.
We look forward to the Commission’s response. Thank you, Mr President, for your indulgence.
ECON welcomes, in particular, the emphasis on consumers. The previous Commissioner, Mrs Kroes, did a splendid job of making the consumer the focus of the competition policies, and we trust Commissioner Almunia will build on that.
That brings me to the first big issue, namely that of cartels. We discussed at great length issues like the most effective sanctions, the fairness of high fines and the feasibility of criminal sanctions.
However, before I enter into the details of our discussions, I would like to remind European companies that the best guarantee for escaping sanctions is by simply not engaging in cartels. You may think that you are outsmarting the competition authorities but, in reality, you are doing harm to the consumer. Cartels are not smart. They are reprehensible.
We therefore welcome the firm stance taken by the European Commission on anti-competitive behaviour. It is essential that sanctions punish bad behaviour, in particular, of repeat offenders, but they must encourage compliance at the same time. Sanctions must have a sufficiently deterrent effect. High fines are an effective tool but, as a single instrument, they may be too blunt. Therefore, we invite the Commission to come up with proposals to make the toolkit more sophisticated and more effective. In the report, we suggest looking at issues such as individual responsibility, transparency and accountability of firms, shorter procedures, due process and the development of European standards and corporate compliance programmes.
A second key issue is State aid. In the context of the economic crisis, huge amounts of State aid have been granted. Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures. We recognise that, but we should not lose sight of the fact that granting State aid comes at a price. It distorts competition and it leads to record levels of public debt and budget deficits. The bill for this episode will be presented to future generations. We have a duty to justify every single cent that has been spent. I am therefore pleased that ECON urges the Commission to do a thorough evaluation of the results of the exceptional State aid operation.
We would, in particular, like to see an evaluation of State aid granted for the so-called green recovery. Two years ago, we were persuaded to accept the recovery package and the State aid measures with the promise that it would be used to bring about the long overdue shift to a sustainable knowledge economy. Now we ask you, has the money indeed brought about that shift? What has it been spent on? Who were the beneficiaries and what have they actually done for green recovery?
We also need clarity, Commissioner, about the impact of the State aid exercise in the financial sector and, in particular, its possible distortive effects.
I would like now to say a few words on the issue of vertical restraints. We know the current agreement will be revised for May of this year. The European Commission previously committed to closely involving the European Parliament in the review process. However, to my disappointment, I had to read about the latest version of the proposals in the media. When I then asked the Commission to get the same documents as had been leaked to the press, it took considerable arm twisting to get them and I cannot hide my annoyance at this. The Commission should put an end to the systematic and deliberate leaking to the press. To deny that it happens, frankly, is an insult to our intelligence."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples