Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-13-Speech-4-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030313.4.4-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Fischler on the communication that he has just given this Parliament, but I cannot. I am unable to do so because of the lopsided thinking that has led to the belated approach to a problem that has been around for a considerable time, as in fact the Commissioner stated a few moments ago, and also because of the disappointing content of this Commission communication.
Today, at best, we will be attempting to limit the damage caused by the abuse of Community aid granted to multinational companies. Perhaps, if the Commission had shown greater foresight and been more vigilant, the situations involving the closure and restructuring of companies that have led to this Commission communication would not have occurred. On my own behalf and on behalf of the PPE-DE, I wish to express my total solidarity with all the workers, especially those in Portugal, affected by foreign companies’ decisions to close.
Job losses deal a devastating blow to the workers affected and their families. I shall highlight two cases with which I am very familiar: those of the Clark shoe factory and the Bawo clothing factory. Last January, the management of the Clark company decided, unexpectedly and without consulting anyone, to close their factory in Castelo de Paiva in Portugal, leaving 588 workers unemployed. Two years previously, acting in a similar way, they had shut down their factory at Arouca in the same region, leaving almost 500 people unemployed. Clark had benefited from enormous sums of Community, national and local aid. Despite this fact, the company claimed that the justification for these mass redundancies was their having to import shoe uppers from India and Romania in order to maintain a competitive price structure. I have just quoted verbatim from the press release issued by Clark on 10 January.
The other case is as follows. Last February, the management of the Bawo company proceeded to remove the machinery from its factory at Estarreja under the cover of night and entirely without the knowledge of its workers. By pure chance, one of them realised what was going on and alerted her colleagues. All the workers maintained a vigil at the factory gates, day and night, in the rain and cold, until the courts ordered the seizure of the equipment.
Both companies intend to relocate to enlargement countries and to third countries. These cases are models of a poor example to set and raise the following questions: where is the balance between economic interests and those of the companies and the rights of workers and of society? If this situation continues, what will become of the European social model?
Mr President, Commissioner, we are in favour of competitiveness, we are not enemies of globalisation, we understand the competitive nature of the world market, but we cannot accept the economy being considered to be an end in itself rather than something at the service of mankind. What we cannot tolerate is that the money from all European taxpayers should be used to reward companies that skip from country to country in the pursuit of greater profit and cheaper labour. Companies act in this way, moreover, without any social concern, either for their workers and their families, and even less for the economic effects on the regions affected. Subsidies that are granted must serve to create employment and not to fund relocations. It is not our intention to prevent companies from closing or relocating their factories, but to ensure that those benefiting from financial aid give commitments and provide guarantees for long-term employment.
The European Union’s priority is employment. The Lisbon strategy set the objective of achieving full employment within the decade. This Parliament is increasingly apprehensive about the progress that has been made in the European Union with regard to the Lisbon ambition. This phenomenon of factory relocating is spreading in several Member States, creating unemployment and endangering the economic and social development of the regions. The consequence of this will be greater pressure on social security systems, which will have to bear the costs of social assistance for these unemployed citizens and we are, of course, moving even further away from the vision laid down in Lisbon.
Something must be done urgently. We therefore call on the Commission to draw up a legislative framework that will attach a moral component to granting companies Community funds. Clear rules must be established, which prevent and punish abuses by companies that receive subsidies from the European Union. The Commission must refuse to grant aid to companies that fail to respect the commitments they have given to the Member States and must force them to pay such aid back. As an immediate measure, we urge the Commission to monitor closures currently underway and to draw up a list of companies that fail to comply. I wish to use my final words to welcome the support of the other political groups in this Parliament, in particular that of our socialist colleagues, who have understood the reach of the serious consequences of these company relocations in the Community area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples