text
stringlengths
0
3.78k
most people however would like to live in the area in which they were born and raised if they were given the chance to in other words if there was work there
we must give them this opportunity
this is a moral obligation the eu and all of us have
the solution as i see it lies in clearly encouraging entrepreneurship
by entrepreneurship i do not simply mean the ownership of business but creating will
i mean the attitude where a person wants to get on in life whether he or she is an employee the owner of a business or an official
what is a fair society
one in which someone from a modest background can get on in life so as to make life a little easier for his or her children
in this way positive development of the regions is also possible because people will start business and will work if they are given the chance
finally i would say that in this matter we should learn a lesson from america where hard work is still in fashion and success is an indication of ability and not the object of envy as it often is here in europe
mr president commissioner as my time is limited i shall get straight to the point
firstly let me make a statement of fact the fruits of growth are not distributed equitably within the union
the most remote regions still hard hit by catastrophic unemployment rates offer one example of this
in reunion for example the rate is 37
this is not a situation related to the economic climate however rather it is a structural problem created by our remoteness our insularity in short our own specific personality
the principle of specific exceptional treatment was envisaged in article 299(2) of the treaty of amsterdam in order to deal with such cases
it only remains to put this principle into practice
the commission document expected to be ready in december 1999 was delayed until january then february and the initial thinking does not fill me with much optimism
i therefore appeal formally to the council and the commission
as regards taxation state aid the structural funds and defending our traditional products practical measures characterised by daring and ambition must be planned as a matter of urgency
if these do not materialise then unfortunately convergence and cohesion will remain no more than words for us and it is to be feared that the structural policy undertaken in our regions despite the size of the amounts committed will end in failure
thank you very much commissioner
the debate is closed
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 pm
(the sitting was closed at 825 pm)
adoption of the minutes of the previous sitting
the minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed
are there any comments
mr president i respond to an invitation yesterday afternoon by the president of the house to speak on behalf of my group on a matter referred to in the minutes
i refer to item 11 on the order of business
firstly i believe the issue raised by the president of the socialist group yesterday about the reinstatement of the debate with the president of the commission on the fiveyear strategic programme was sufficiently important for other speakers who wished to comment briefly on that matter to have been accommodated
i wish to express that view even if i respectfully disagreed and voted against the proposal of the president of the socialist group
the second point i would like to make and which i would have wished to make yesterday before the vote is that this parliament as other speakers remarked yesterday can only really have an effect if it works in close cooperation and synergy with the european commission
we should also have the humility to recognise that if we wanted to have a strategic debate accompanied not just by a presentation and elucidation by the president of the commission but also by a fiveyear programme we should have the mechanisms in place more than just a week in advance of the debate in this house so as to be able to discuss and convey in due time to the commission what our wishes were
there is one basic lesson i would like us to learn from this
when there are major setpiece debates scheduled between this house and the european commission in the future we should clear all of our lines on what are our mutual expectations at least one full working month in advance
there needs firstly to be clarity between all of the groups of this house and then between this house and the commission
we should not find ourselves late in the day in the unfortunate position where the one or other institution creates an unnecessary fracture in institutional relationships
looking at some of the press reports of last friday i believe that the commission and its president exercised commendable selfrestraint in the way they commented publicly
that is something for which i have a deep appreciation
i hope that we will learn the lessons and not repeat this unnecessary exercise which i believe was founded on a misapprehension as to what was expected rather than any bad faith on the part of either of the two institutions
it should not be dramatised into something more than that
thank you very much mr cox
i understand what you are saying
we have taken note of this
mr president concerning item 11 of the minutes on the order of business we agreed yesterday to have the bourlanges report on today's agenda
however it was withdrawn from the committee on budgets last night without being discussed or voted on
it therefore needs to be withdrawn from today's agenda
mr wynn that makes sense
the report is hereby withdrawn from the agenda
mr president regarding mrs lynne's comments yesterday about health and safety in this building i presume she was talking about the drains because there is a dreadful smell of drains on the fifth floor in the tower
this needs to be looked into because it is clearly an indication that something is seriously wrong
i do not want to drag up the issue of this building endlessly but this is a serious problem
mrs ahern we have taken note of this
i would ask you to bring this specific case which has to do with the ventilators on a particular floor to the attention of the quaestors who are in fact responsible for the matter
we will also pass this on to our services however
thank you very much
(the minutes were approved)
reform of european competition policy
the next item is the joint debate on the following reports
a50069/1999 by mr von wogau on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs on the commission white paper on modernisation of the rules implementing articles 85 and 86 of the ec treaty [com(1999) 101 c50105/1999 1999/2108(cos)]
a50078/1999 by mr rapkay on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs on the european commission' s xxviiith report on competition policy 1998 [sek(1999) 743 c50121/1999 1999/2124(cos)]
a50087/1999 by mr jonckheer on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs on the seventh survey on state aid in the european union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors [com(1999) 148 c50107/1999 1999/2110(cos)] (report 19951997)
a50073/1999 by mr langen on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs on the commission report on the implementation in 1998 of commission decision no 2496/96/ecsc of 18 december 1996 establishing community rules for state aid to the steel industry (steel aid code) [com(1999) 94 c50104/1999 1999/2107(cos)]
mr president commissioner today we are engaged in an important debate about the european union' s competition policy
we are debating a highly controversial modernisation proposal for european monopolies law that is mr von wogau' s report and it is far more controversial than the vote in the committee on economic and monetary affairs may have given us reason to believe
i want to make it quite clear that in this specific case i personally consider the commission' s proposal to be wrong and feel that it remains to be seen as to whether we are truly justified in using the term modernisation to describe the content of articles 81 and 82 of the white paper or whether in this case it would be more appropriate to use the expression retrograde step
however we are also discussing the aid report today and the general competition report for 1998 and my contribution to this joint debate relates to the latter
but of course both the competition report and the aid report share common ground in this white paper
it is all about the need for modernisation and the future viability of the european competition policy
on reading both commission documents one learns that 1998 was the year in which the modernisation proposals introduced in 1997 were pursued and even partially completed which is something our own ongoing parliamentary work has taught us
allow me to make two fundamental comments at this juncture as the competent authority the commission with its logically consistent approach has again and again served the cause of freedom of competition not always to the delight of the member states or enterprises concerned
it should continue along this path
but commissioner none of this is to become less complicated in future one only has to think of the challenges posed by the enlargement of the union the deepening of the internal market technological progress globalisation
indeed it is not just about modernisation of community law more than anything it is about transparency of decisions taken in individual cases about the possibility of decisions actually being able to implement decisions for the european competition policy will be dependent on the population' s acceptance together with that of the political bodies and enterprises concerned
only without transparency there will be no acceptance indeed there can be no modernisation without transparency
the competition report 1998 is not a bad foundation for this but in fact there is nothing that could not be further improved upon
our motion will give you a great deal of food for thought commissioner but there is one point that i would just like to go into now transparency and accountability belong together
i do not wish to call the distribution of competences between the commission and parliament into question
the commission is the executive and parliament ought to have no desire whatsoever to take on this role for the sake of its own independence but parliament is a supervisory body and what better forum could there be in which to expound the reasoning behind one' s decisions than a democraticallyelected parliament indeed an ongoing parliamentary discussion
here too we should continue along the path we have chosen strengthening and intensifying it
there is one thing i would like to make quite clear though parliament is a legislative body but the fact that we have no more than the right of consultation in matters of competition law of all things is truly scandalous
therefore i would urge the council and the intergovernmental conference to introduce the codecision procedure into legislation in this area
i expect the commission to exploit every available opportunity for parliamentary cooperation and to involve parliament in doubtful cases even given the treaty status quo
i also expect the commission to be proactive in supporting us in our call for codecision in legislative procedures
this will be a good test as to whether there is reasonable cooperation between the two institutions
with all due respect for the principle of competition competition is not however an end in itself
competition is an instrument and does not always produce ideal solutions
at the end of the day one of the fundamental tenets of economic theory is that the market is failing in many respects and anyone who takes issue with this is nothing more than an ideologue
competition should bring about balance in supply and demand and should provide for the optimum distribution of economic resources and facts
but optimum efficiency does not necessarily come about of its own accord
framework conditions are indispensable when it comes to preventing abuses monopolies law being one example
but on the whole this only serves to prevent abuses framework conditions alone cannot achieve socially legitimate goals in isolation
competition yes restrictions in state aid where necessary and where possible
however since state aid forms the lion' s share of the competition report 1998 i would still like regardless of mr jonckheer' s report to say one more thing about it it is certainly possible indeed it must be feasible for state aid to be given to small and mediumsized enterprises involved in research and development for the purpose of educating them in regional and environmental policy
indeed it must be permissible for state aid to be provided for such purposes provided it does not lead to unacceptable distortion of competition
this is precisely the area where it is even more important than it is in monopolies and mergers law for decisions to be comprehensible
it is not just that we should pillory state aid rather our approach must be one of drawing distinctions and we must assess the different types of state aid in accordance with the extent to which they help to achieve the abovementioned objectives
my last comment was intended not so much for the commission as for the members of the group of the european people' s party
mr president commissioner ladies and gentlemen the report which i have the opportunity to propose to you today is an opinion on the commission' s annual report on the state aid in force within the european union and for which the community is authorised under articles 87 88 and 89 of the treaties