Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-04-Speech-2-203"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Economic and social consequences of business restructuring in Europe (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060704.28.2-203"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-07-04-Speech-2-2042
lpv:speaker	lp:Helmuth Markov2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (2004-07-20--2006-10-04)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, plant closures like this one in Portugal are not isolated cases. In 2005, more than half a million jobs were lost in the European Union through restructuring measures. Quoted companies, in whatever country they are based, are registering all-time record profits. Sales are going through the roof, and workforces are being drastically pruned. Over the last three years, the productivity of companies featuring in the German share index DAX has risen by an average of 6.5%. Surely that means they are competitive! When we discuss what to do, we must ask whether the basis on which we grant aid is the right one. I shall make you a few proposals, most of which have not yet been given any consideration. Is it not safe to assume that aid is primarily awarded for innovative products and processes, for new research and development rather than for plant and equipment? I believe this categorisation can be used to restrict aid awards. My second question is this: is it wise to limit the recovery to five years? The amortisation period for equipment is usually 10 to 15 years. Logically, companies should repay the money for as long as it takes to write off the capital expenditure. Thirdly, when it comes to assessing whether or not support should be granted, should we not insist and verify that companies operating globally comply with the guidelines of the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and the applicable emission standards in all their locations? Any company that does not would simply be ineligible for aid. Fourthly, is it wise to support companies which are not bound by a collective agreement and which trade unions are unable to influence? In such cases, European taxpayers are paying double. We fund the companies’ research and development and their expenditure on equipment, and afterwards they make employees redundant, and European taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill for unemployment benefit too. That is surely bad economics! One final point: if we intend to pursue a genuine structural and regional policy, a far closer link must be forged between the company’s need for support and the beneficial regional impact of such support."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph