Mr President, Article 86 of the Treaty captures the very essence of the resolution. Paragraph 1 stipulates that in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty. Paragraph 2 adds, in summary, that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty. It is up to the Commission to monitor the observation of this Article and to provide fitting directives or decisions to the Member States. The amendment to the directive to which this resolution pertains must enable the Commission to carry out this task more effectively, which is certainly necessary given the ever growing liberalisation of recent years. Public undertakings and former public undertakings increasingly embrace the commercial world where they, partly with government funding, engage in competition with private undertakings, i.e. their own citizens. Let it be clear, then, that the much desired level playing field no longer exists. The present situation promotes money wasting, distorts international trade and, as such, forms a threat to the internal market. It is surely only logical and reasonable that public undertakings, at the time when they enter into the market, should abide by the same rules as private undertakings. As a means of guaranteeing a level playing field, the Commission has decided that undertakings with a net turnover in excess of EUR 40 million should keep separate accounts which should illustrate the different activities, the costs and profits pertaining to each of the activities, the method according to which costs and profit are accounted for and the way in which the net profits generated by each activity are used. These are the considerations with regard to the proposal. In short, what is the origin of investments in the commercial field? Initially, the Commission proposal met with a great deal of resistance from EMAC and the Commission. In actual fact, there was only a handful of Members and the who were in favour of the planned transparency. This caused me concern. We, as MEPs, are elected to exercise democratic control over the executive, in this case the Commission. The Commission is, in turn, responsible for observing Article 86. We thus have the duty to ensure that the Commission carries out the assigned task properly but, at the same time, some of us would prevent it from doing exactly that. I wonder how we must come across in a situation like this. We make it abundantly clear that we strive for fair competition and utilisation of our internal market but, when the chips are down, we are once again looking solely after our own interests. In the report on the adoption of the single currency by Greece, I blame the governments for not doing what needs to be done. Those against this directive are thus giving the governments a helping hand. As Parliament, we cannot do anything else but to ensure that the markets operate clearly and transparently and that we do not give preferential treatment to certain undertakings and not others. This directive may seem tedious, but is, in reality, the acid test.

Political group: PPE-DE