Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-04-Speech-2-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060704.28.2-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, record profits on the one hand, plant closures and relocations on the other. Many people in the EU nowadays ask themselves the same vexed question every day: when will it hit me? When will my job be on the line? When will it be my turn?
Thirdly, an active industrial policy that keeps industry in Europe is more essential than ever before. The illusion that industry can now be consigned to museums is just as false as the notion that industry is first and foremost the world’s chief polluter. I advise anyone who still thinks in these terms to think again. Those who would drive industry out of Europe are playing with the futures of the people who work in industry, the futures of the people who work in industry-related services – sectors that employ not only millions of people but many tens of millions – and the futures of the small and medium-sized enterprises all the way up the supply chain; in short, they are playing with the future of Europe itself.
We need to maintain a strong industrial sector in Europe with companies that perform in the global marketplace. We are not simply looking for European champions; we need leaders in the world market, for our firms are effectively competing in a global arena. No government can make them successful; that is down to the companies’ own efforts. We can, however, back them to the hilt.
This was the task of the High-Level Group CARS 21. Twelve million jobs in the European Union are linked directly or indirectly with vehicle manufacturing. We have spoken to all the stakeholders about what can and must be done to maintain a strong automotive industry in Europe. I hope Parliament will understand why, on the issue of future exhaust-emission standards, I argue against a policy of ‘head down and charge’ and in favour of formulating proposals that we can put on the table when the time comes, secure in the knowledge that our high standards are technologically feasible and that they will also be affordable for most people.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are already able to build a car with zero emissions today, but there is nobody I know personally who could afford such a car, and I imagine no one in this Parliament could afford one either. We must do our bit to ensure that it remains possible to manufacture and sell European cars – not for the sake of the cars, not even for the sake of those who buy and drive them but for the sake of the people who need those jobs.
Another thing is that an active industrial policy does not stop at the borders of the old European Union but encompasses the new Member States too. Enlargement is not the curse of the European labour force, nor is it the cause of structural change. The truth is that, in 17 out of 20 industries, the old EU has a huge advantage; only in three industries do the new Member States now have a competitive edge. One of these, indeed, is the car industry. That, however, will only help us when China and other newly developed countries become more powerful competitors in the automotive market.
As for the automotive industry itself – which, of course, was the trigger for this debate – I wish to express my firm conviction that we shall keep our car industry in Europe in the long term, and it will be strong, but it will look rather different in ten years’ time than it looks today. There will be consolidations. You need only read today’s newspapers to learn of transatlantic talks on that very subject.
What we can predict with some degree of certainty is a mixed picture – one picture for Western Europe and another for Central and Eastern Europe. We shall no longer see any significant growth in vehicle output in Western Europe. There will only be a slight increase in demand. Productivity is likely to grow faster than demand, and anyone with any knowledge of economics knows what that means: it means that the pressure on car-manufacturing jobs in the older Member States will become even greater.
As far as we know, the major European manufacturers – and the same applies to General Motors – have no plans to shift any of their production capacity out of Western Europe. They will, however – and this is the salient point – establish new production facilities where demand for their products is greatest. This trend is already clearly observable throughout the entire European car industry.
On the plus side, however, we see that not only European manufacturers but those from other parts of the world too are starting to concentrate research and development capacities in Europe once more, especially in the old locations. In this respect too, the European operations of General Motors are no exception.
Enterprises, ladies and gentlemen, bear a great social responsibility for Europe, and that must become apparent across the board. I am not one to criticise every corporate relocation decision out of hand, nor am I entitled to do so. Besides, it would be foolish to do so, for the globalisation of production and research is unavoidable if a company is to succeed in the long term in a competitive industry. I do, however, criticise those who put short-term profit before sustainable solutions. I criticise those who, when they come under pressure, choose to cut and run as the cheapest option, with no regard for the people they put out on the street. I criticise those who pay themselves huge salaries but are not worth a penny as responsible managers, because they have driven their company to the wall and squandered the jobs it once provided.
In the transformation process in Central and Eastern Europe alone, entire economies have collapsed, and millions of jobs have gone. People have understood this, however, because it was the result of Communist mismanagement. Yet many are unable to understand what is happening in many industries in the older EU Member States: textiles, shoes, furniture, household appliances, pharmaceuticals and cars – manufacturing industries that have always been considered secure – are hitting the skids.
I want to see companies in Europe that are constantly striving upwards, that take innovation to new levels, that can alter their profile, that train their staff to cope with new tasks too. We, of course, have a duty to help them in all of this. Yet we must also point out the limits of political action. Corporate decisions to close or relocate plants are decisions taken by companies, and no government and no European Union can overrule them, whether in the case of Azambuja or in any other case.
We do, however, have some very clear rules, and we must insist vigorously on their observance. These include the key issue of dialogue between management and labour, for example. When a plant is to be closed or relocated, this dialogue must include the following question: what has the company done to give its redundant employees a new future, for example in terms of training, further education and industrial retraining? From this follows another question: what have we done to help it?
We also have the instrument of aid for companies in difficulty, which was also used in the Azambuja case. Aid awards were authorised in 2002. The plant’s difficulties, in other words, are not entirely new. Let me make it very clear, however, that the payments of state aid which were authorised in that case and which took the form of investment support from the Portuguese budget were granted under European rules, which stipulate that the beneficiary company must remain at its location for at least five years after making the investment for which it has received support.
At the request of the Commission, the Portuguese Government is currently investigating whether the plant also received money from European funds. If it did, this would be another point on which we should have to insist on strict fulfilment of our conditions, and I can promise you that the Commission will do that. European tax revenue is meant to be used to stabilise plants in European locations, not to axe jobs.
Very few people have been prepared for this structural change we are witnessing. It is therefore high time to help the many people who have lost their bearings to reorientate themselves. The significance of today's discussion extends far beyond the possible closure of a car-manufacturing plant in Portugal. It is a discussion about the future of employment in Europe.
The time has also come to spell out a few home truths.
Firstly, we have entered a new phase of competition, and the pace of structural change is set to quicken still further. We must not close our eyes to that. Competition is a fact of life, whether we like it or not. Nor is it a question of whether we can survive competition intact. The great social question of our time is how many people's prospects will be ruined by this competition; to put it another way, the great social issue of our time is the future of our jobs.
It is time we faced up to that question. Whoever still believes that other issues take precedence is out of touch with the world of today and its challenges. We need more sustainable, environmentally safe growth, and we need more and better jobs, otherwise the social face of Europe will turn cold and cynical, which would be an affront to our European principles of shared responsibility between the individual and society, of solidarity, social justice and social cohesion.
The key word for a European society of the 21st century that seeks to offer its people new prospects is ‘competitiveness’. We are all well aware that Fortress Portugal, Fortress Germany, Fortress Poland or Fortress Europe is not an option in the open world of the 21st century. We must embrace open competition; we must capture the high ground and draw competition upwards in search of the best solutions, the best technology and the highest standards.
Secondly, we have launched a common European policy for growth and employment. This policy must now be vigorously pursued in Europe, nationally and regionally, otherwise we shall be gazing time and again in dismay at one breach after the other in our social model in the form of closed factories and research laboratories that have relocated overseas – which has already been happening. I would warn anyone against the notion that we can easily put up with production facilities moving away because we still have research and development. Once production has gone, research and development will follow.
A policy for growth and employment must be a policy that creates a favourable business climate for all companies. It is in business, in companies, that jobs are created, and it is companies that axe jobs too. No edict from the government of a Member State or from the EU as a whole can change that in the slightest. We can however pursue a policy that creates external conditions which make it possible and attractive for companies to do their work, to expand, to invest and to create jobs in Europe. That is the meaning of the term ‘business-friendly policy’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples