Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-13-Speech-4-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030213.5.4-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I have listened with great care and attention and interest to this crucial debate. One cannot but be moved by the strength and passion with which Members of Parliament have expressed their views on this unfortunate issue. A number of interesting ideas were developed throughout the debate and the Commission will study all of them with great care.
There were also references to making public aid dependent upon the maintenance of employment. Generally speaking, public aid to companies is already subject to those kinds of conditions. A number of the existing instruments specifically link the obtaining of state aid funds to the obligation to keep people employed during a minimum period. The guidelines on national regional aid make it clear that aid for job creation must be made conditional on maintenance of the employment created for a minimum period of five years. Similarly, the Commission regulation on state aid for employment contains provisions stipulating that such aid can only be granted if the employment is maintained for a minimum period of three years, or two years in the case of SMEs. Continuous employment should also be granted to workers in the case of aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers.
The Structural Funds regulations do not contain similar conditions, but it is clear that in so far as Structural Funds are used to cofinance state aid schemes, relevant obligations to keep people employed for a minimum period of time have to be respected.
Some reference was made to the alleged ambitions of one of the companies involved to make acquisitions in Poland. Possible acquisition by Arcelor of certain factories in Poland or other third countries would be the subject of a survey by the Commission, pursuant to Regulation 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. The Commission underlines that it only permits concentrations which are compatible with the common market. In its evaluation the Commission comes to a conclusion only about the competitive aspects without intervening in the industrial policy of a private company. I should also say that the Commission has no information to the effect that any such plans for acquisition by that company have been successful.
Finally, industrial change has economic implications and an impact on employment and social cohesion. However, it also provides opportunities when anticipated, prepared for and managed. Dialogue, transparency, proper worker involvement, anticipation, risk prevention and the development of employability are the key elements of our European response to this phenomenon. Let us do our best to build the instruments of a legislative or other nature which can promote these principles.
Most of the points raised were dealt with in my introductory remarks and I will not go into detail on them now. Let me underline again the basic principle according to which decisions on corporate restructuring are a prerogative of management, but also its responsibility.
A wide consensus seems to exist in Europe on the way to address crises resulting from the need for companies to adapt, from industrial change and from corporate restructuring. Let me reaffirm again the importance of effective, timely and comprehensive information and consultation of workers' representatives.
You have nevertheless expressed other types of concerns to which I would like to give you the Commission's preliminary view. Before I do that I would like to pick up one or two points that were made. There were references, for instance, to the European Coal and Steel Community, and I was asked whether Articles 3 and 5 have any application in these circumstances. It appears to be the case that Articles 3 and 5 no longer have application because the ECSC is no longer operational. Nor indeed are state aids possible. We all know that. There is no competence at EU level to deal with many of the issues that have been raised by honourable Members in this debate this afternoon.
I can only quote what Mrs Zrihen said in her contribution just a moment ago, when she said the legislative arsenal is insufficient. That is indeed the case. There is not a lot that can be done in many circumstances in relation to some of the issues that you have raised because of the very point that Mrs Zrihen has raised.
I shall now deal with some of the issues you raised. Firstly, with regard to the trade dispute in the steel sector between the USA and the EU, the Commission is pursuing a very active line with regard to the unilateral measures taken by the US to protect its steel industry. Those defensive measures include, besides intensive bilateral contacts with a view to solving the conflict, retaliation measures and using the WTO disputes settlement mechanism. My colleague, Commissioner Lamy, is forcefully pursuing that particular issue.
Another issue that was raised in the debate was the issue surrounding the issue of enlargement. For the steel industry, as well as for many other industries, enlargement is above all a window of opportunity for them to develop their businesses in the interests of themselves and in the interests of their workers. There are issues related to compliance with standards in the new Member States, notably in the social and environmental fields. Those issues are, however, being dealt with through technical assistance to help their industries to adapt, as well as through the assurance that those new members will have to comply with the relevant Community law from the date of accession.
A number of Members made reference to Social Funds and so on, and particularly to the free use of Community funds, notably the European Social Fund, to support the training and professional reconversion of workers affected by restructuring.
I should like to make a few points on that. After the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, the only possibility lies in the European Social Fund and in interventions from the Structural Funds. The main goal in the long term must be the reconversion of local industrial activities. This will have a much greater impact on the regions than direct social aid to the employees, although some transitional measures can be considered. We should recall that aid for the rescue and restructuring of companies in difficulty remains prohibited, in principle, for the iron and steel industry, as does any investment aid. The same rules apply to the countries applying for accession and with regard to new aid."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples