Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-618-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121120.32.2-618-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me stress again that I consider the situation at the Ford factory in Genk to be extremely serious. That is why eight days ago I received a delegation of the trade unions of this company and discussed with representatives of the employees themselves what the Commission can do in this particular situation, particularly by using the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, but also in the broader context in cooperation with the authorities of Belgium, also using the European Social Fund if allocations are available.
But I think this would be justified if there is an effort in Europe to increase the financial capacity of the EIB. There should also be a discussion of how the EIB could refocus its financing actually on the European Member States and coordinate these projects better with the need to revive European manufacturing and in particular to help the relatively weaker regions.
That also brings me to the questions of the MFF because several speakers, including the rapporteur, Miss Harkin, but also Mr Daerden, mentioned the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is indeed our key instrument for intervention in such cases. It is an ex post instrument, once restructuring has already been announced. But it is also an ex ante instrument because, through training, through various forms of education, promoting enterprise, it can actually prepare many workers involved for future economic or business activities.
That is a capacity, a merit, a potential in the EGF which I hope those in the European Council will appreciate later this week when they consider the social dimension of the MFF and the instruments that can support workers who are very often the victims of careless industrial decisions.
I think this has been an extremely important discussion. I would like to connect it to the morning’s discussion when we were together here with Vice-President Tajani to discuss the questions of industry and what the Commission can do for what the Vice-President calls an industrial revolution in the European Union, and I will certainly share with my colleagues the points and lessons of this debate, especially on the question of restructuring. I agree with many of you that we have a lot to do.
But I also want to stress that similarly to many who have spoken in this debate, I consider the question of the industry to be extremely serious and very relevant. That is why, together with Mr Tajani, we have been working on a reinforced industrial policy for the European Union which sets out a very concrete numerical objective until 2020: to reverse the industrial decline of Europe, to increase the share of industry within the European economy to at least 20 % of the European GDP from its current level of 16%.
Of course this requires a very concerted effort. It also requires a sectoral view when necessary and when justified and clearly the automotive sector is one of those where we need a concrete sectoral focus and an action plan.
In fact the CARS 2020 Action Plan delivers. It delivers many requirements which you mentioned in this discussion. For example, in terms of innovation, it does not lower but actually increases the ambition. It also points to the possible financing tools by which the European Union can help the revival of this sector.
But, as Mr Harbour also pointed out, there is a need for a certain level of realism, a need to see what globalisation, global competition, cost-effectiveness means in this sector, what skills are needed in the future; and that is why the anticipation of change, the anticipation of structural development in cooperation with the social partners involved is so important in this area.
This is actually one of the key lessons of our consultation, on the basis of the Commission Green Paper, on restructuring which we conducted in the first half of this year; and on the basis of this consultation, which included a broader range of stakeholders and not only the social partners, we are very carefully considering the necessary steps forward.
In that of course we pay very close attention to the work of Mr Cercas as rapporteur and certainly we will consider his conclusions, which I believe are forthcoming in December in this Parliament, when we decide in the Commission on the necessary steps forward.
I certainly take note of many points made in this debate concerning the wish for a more robust, more interventionist industrial policy. I have to admit that what is there, a 2.0 industrial policy – it has been reinforced as compared to the original version in the Europe 2020 strategy, it does a lot more in terms of innovation, in terms of human capital, in terms of access to markets, access to finance – is certainly not exactly the same type of planned economy which I heard from some of the interventions. We definitely cannot establish a planned economy retroactively and give a capacity to the European Commission to come with concrete intervention potential to cases when some of these companies, multinationals, decide to relocate.
But I share your view when you say that these industrial policies should be better coordinated with the development of our financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank. Indeed, not only the Ford case but some other cases are controversial and we need to look into the decisions of the EIB and see, especially in the context of the capital increase which the Commission also has advocated in the case of the EIB; without, of course, interfering too much with the business plan of the EIB."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples