Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-13-Speech-4-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030313.4.4-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, newspaper headlines feature – with increasing frequency – the closure of undertakings to which financial aid had been granted by the European Union. Whilst this is not a new problem, it is true that the instances of closures, often followed by relocations, have recently been increasing in number. The Commission therefore understands very well why Parliament attaches great importance to this problem and has a considerable interest in it, and how our fellow-citizens are quite right to be perturbed by it.
Finally, the new regulation on State aid for employment enacted in 2002 is rather more flexible, requiring that the jobs created be maintained for a period of three years in the case of large enterprises and for a period of two years for small and medium-sized enterprises.
All these provisions will have to be applied in the future Member States from the moment of their accession. I would like to observe, in order to give the full picture, that the five-year rule I have just mentioned applies only to the 2000-2006 programming period. It is possible to reduce or cancel Community aid in respect of the period from 1994 to 1999 if the conditions subject to which the measure is operated no longer apply. In all these instances, neither the Commission nor the Member States may refuse to grant a subsidy if the necessary conditions are complied with, but, if it becomes apparent that an enterprise has received support without complying with Community provisions regarding state aid, it shall reimburse the aid to which it is not entitled.
The Commission is prepared, then, to discharge its responsibilities where an enterprise has, under an aid scheme co-financed by a Community programme, received subsidies without being entitled to them. This does, however, presuppose that the authorities in the country from which the enterprise has migrated have, in the first place, established that the points described above of the provisions have been breached.
Let me also briefly enlarge upon the social dimension of the problem of the closure of undertakings. Although there is no doubt that the closure of a plant is a matter for the management of the enterprise in question, we cannot, however, disregard the fact that the many restructurings currently in progress in Europe are not all comparable with each other. Some are the result of clear economic decisions and have been discussed frankly with the workers and their representatives, while others, regrettably, carried out without regard for labour law, force people, unprepared, into unemployment.
The Commission's position is clear; enterprises may well be free to come to their own economic decisions, but they must always be aware of the social dimension. If job losses appear to be inevitable, everything possible must be done to make the workers affected by them more employable. If this is to be done, the enterprises must have thought out a forward-looking policy and must also demonstrate social responsibility.
At this point, I really do want to particularly stress the point that nothing, indeed nothing, can justify the failure to inform and consult workers' representatives in the case of restructuring. Several Community directives lay down the framework within which such a dialogue must take place. The European Works Councils Directive, in particular, imposes on multinational groups of companies with bases in Europe precise duties as regards informing and consulting workers' representatives.
Social measures accompanying restructuring are, after all, also an important issue for the social partners and for the new European Observatory on Industrial Change. In this area, too, the Commission relies on the Member States, upon whom devolves the duty of ensuring compliance with Community labour law. What the Commission will do, however, is to exercise a comprehensive monitoring function, with the primary objective of ensuring that the directives on worker information and consultation are adequately transposed.
My fellow Commissioners, Mrs Diamantopoulou and Mr Barnier, have asked me to put before you the Commission's position on this complex problem. This will obviously have to touch on several different aspects, the first being the policy of economic and social cohesion by means of co-finance from the Structural Funds; secondly, European social policy; but also, thirdly, the rules of the European internal market, which should enable our enterprises to build themselves up in a climate of fair competition.
I would like, in my statement, to focus on the issues I have just mentioned, but before doing so, there are two other points I would like to address. The first is that the problem of the closure of undertakings – even if the financial aid granted means that the Community is directly affected – is not a phenomenon exclusive to Europe, but one that must be considered in its international context.
It is unfortunate that our enterprises often succumb to the temptation to relocate their operations to countries where wages are low, sometimes disregarding all the requirements of social and environmental integration. This international dimension of the problem demands that we be consistent in finding international or global solutions to it, which will, above all, involve active cooperation with the poorest countries and the creation of a system of international law that is more rigorous and better applied.
Secondly, it is in the context of enlargement that the Commission gives this problem particular attention. My fellow Commissioner, Mr Verheugen, recently stressed that the forthcoming enlargement offers Europe great opportunities in the future despite the difficulties necessarily involved in the short term in integrating these countries, which, on average have a lower per capita gross national product.
In an internal market such as our own, the decision as to where to base a business operation rests solely with the management of the enterprise in question. As we know, investors base their decisions on the advantages
of one site as compared with those of another, and these include labour costs, social conditions, the quality of the infrastructure, the legal framework applicable, but often aid from the public purse and favourable tax treatment as well. The subsidies granted to the investors are freely negotiated with the public authorities, within the limits of Community and domestic legislation on state aid.
Let me now turn to the subject of ‘closure of undertakings and Community aid’ and remind you that the European Union's regional policy has as its objective the promotion of economic and social cohesion by stimulating the development of the poorest regions. The regional aid granted for productive investment is therefore meant primarily to compensate for the disadvantages of the regions supported in this way, making them better able to hold their own in competition with regions that are better off. This is an area in which the Commission can ensure only the implementation of the general provisions on the Structural Funds laid down by the Council with Parliament's agreement. I might add that this corresponds to the practice within the Member States, in which every region endeavours to attract new enterprises and direct investment.
The Commission, however, also has the task of preventing unfair competition between states, business people and the social actors, for which, in the 2000-2006 programming period, the Structural Funds provide for a range of preventive measures, which I would like to rehearse briefly. The guidelines on national regional aid require the recipients of this aid to maintain their investments for a period of at least five years, a period beginning with the date of the initial investment in the enterprise in question.
The 1999 general Structural Fund Regulation takes the same approach, stating as it does that the Funds will continue their contribution to productive activities only if there is no change in the site at which these activities are carried on in the course of the five years following the Structural Funds' decision to contribute."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples