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 democratically-elected 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 pro-active 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 medium-sized 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 above-mentioned 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.

Political group: PSE