Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.5.3-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are talking about restructuring today. I want to start by offering the Commissioner my sincere congratulations. I believe that today is the first time she has been involved in a debate on social affairs. I think that we will see a lot more of her here on a variety of different occasions. But this particular debate is in fact bringing out something that is fairly essential in all debates on social and employment affairs, namely restructuring and globalisation
I think that it is a good thing in itself that we should discuss this subject again in this new Parliament. It is clear that restructuring is taking place on a continuous basis. That is sometimes forgotten. People tend only to consider restructuring if there are job losses. Of course jobs are often created as well but much less is said about that.
This debate has taken something of a strange course. That is why I would just like to make a comment about a resolution that is evidently still in circulation and is still in my name. It is a resolution that was submitted in connection with the original subject of the debate: the Michelin affair. The Presidents decided not to include this subject in today’s agenda but to talk about restructuring in general. I believe that was a very sensible decision on the part of the Bureau. But my first resolution had to do with the original subject and that is why the PPE has replaced this resolution with the Menrad resolution, which has therefore become the official PPE resolution.
Ultimately we also succeeded in producing a compromise resolution, which replaces a number of group resolutions. The only point, and we must not beat about the bush here of course, is that it was the Michelin affair that gave rise to this debate. I do not intend to talk about this a great deal myself. I believe that it is not the place of Parliament to involve itself in decisions concerning individual companies. My group is firmly convinced of this; all the more so since there has been no mention of government funding in this concrete decision and the decision is also being dealt with in its entirety on the territory of the Republic of France. The French government, which as we all know, consists of socialists, greens and communists, has not intervened in this affair. It would therefore be extraordinarily odd if we were the ones to do so. That is another reason for not getting involved here.
But our fundamental position is that as a general rule we ought not to do so, particularly now that we have a European Works Council whose responsibility it is to solve these types of problem. I would like to add that consultation and information are things that can make it much easier to resolve restructuring problems. Far and away the largest section of my group is absolutely convinced of this. This was also evident from the figures. It is much easier to solve problems if there has been extensive consultation. The Commissioner said the same. But if there is an instrument, and the European Community is fortunate enough to have such an instrument, then surely it makes no sense at all to start talking about each specific case at European level. We must leave that to the consultation system within the company concerned. Even if a national government feels that it has to intervene, that is a matter for that particular national government. It is certainly not for the European Parliament to raise this but that does not alter the fact that a debate of this kind always has its place of course.
Lastly, I have a brief question for the Commissioner. I have not heard government assistance mentioned. That has always been something that has played an important part in debates on restructuring, as in the case of the Hoover debate amongst others. Might the Commissioner be prepared to say something more on this issue?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples