Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market is not complete. Subsidies, monopolies and barriers to competition are still impeding markets and development alike. National governments provide subsidies and promise that this is the last time, but then it happens again. Subsidies distort allocations, both within and between countries. A successive phasing out of State aid is required, and more and more markets must be opened up to competition. This applies to those which have been turned into monopolies, both private and public. Public monopolies are, more often than not, phased out reluctantly. Increased competition and newly established organisations should be able to provide significant benefits in terms of welfare, including within the spheres of education, health care and social services. Public monopolies must be replaced by competitive structures. Europe must be modernised, made more entrepreneurial in spirit and adapted in such a way that it becomes a more competitive environment for consumers and companies. Effective competition pushes prices down and raises standards of living. It is precisely upon price levels that consumer policy has failed to focus sufficiently. In fact, competition policy and consumer policy belong together. The internal market is the basis for our work. Its legislation is to apply equally to all, to large and small countries alike. A systematic survey of the various national regulations is needed if barriers to competition are to be dismantled. The EU’s own regulations too may therefore need to be analysed. The new model now being tested by the Commission ought not to lead to a process of nationalisation pure and simple which would undermine the established competition policy. In order to be effective, it must be well anchored in the Member States’ national authorities. In six months’ time, it may be appropriate to carry out an analysis of the outcome and also to look more closely at the new situation’s effects upon the Commission’s role. The question of how best to make further progress has so far been solved through the idea of holding an inter-institutional congress which will open up an unbiased debate adopting a broad perspective and involving representatives of different interests. This will provide the opportunity to establish new principles or to return to the more radical changes which have been discussed. There will also be the opportunity to find new common solutions and to analyse amendments from the committee debate. The law must be correctly applied in matters of competition. Wrongly applied competition policy may cause losses in the legal sphere and interfere with the right of ownership, which is an important and basic principle we should stand up for. We have a quite exciting debate in front of us. A conference where the issues are properly debated will make it possible to straighten out misunderstandings, at the same time as perhaps improving upon certain points. Parliament and the Commission can together increase their efforts to achieve an effective competition policy and so create new opportunities and new resources for our citizens. In fact, in my own constituency of Stockholm, we have many good local examples of increased supply and improved quality which have arisen precisely because of exposure to competition in areas which were previously total monopolies. We would encourage a continuation of the open debate which has been strengthened in the course of consideration of the reports by Mr von Wogau and Mr Rapkay. We hope that the legal points of view will also be accorded the importance which is only reasonable in a state based on the rule of law.

Political group: PPE-DE