Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-19-Speech-3-039"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20081119.4.3-039"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:translated text
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, it is not surprising that the first full impact on the real economy of the crisis in the financial markets has hit the car market. The first of these is that we really must keep the statutory conditions for business stable and predictable. The industry must know where it stands and what we expect of it. We must keep an eye on the cumulative effects of the measures we take. I think it right that I should remind you that CO is not the only thing that we are discussing when it comes to the motor industry. We have already approved Euro 5 and Euro 6. The measures have not yet been implemented, however, and they, too, require high levels of investment and will make vehicles more expensive. We have already adopted additional requirements relating to protecting pedestrians. This again means a need for heavy investment, and that makes cars more expensive. We already currently have making their way through the legislative process further strict regulations relating to safety improvements in European cars. The effect is the same. When we take all this together, we can already see that European vehicles are going to experience a clear jump in prices over the next few years, and we must take account of this too. The second thing was that we agreed that demand must be boosted. This can take place in various ways. In my opinion, tax incentives are a good tool, but only when the tax incentives in question are CO based. Tax incentives that quite simply lead to any old cars being bought are really of little use. They must be about strengthening the demand for low consumption and environmentally friendly cars. The same applies to public procurement. Then there is the question of the ability to invest. In this regard, there has been a line of credit at the European Investment Bank for years whereby car makers are offered favourable-rate credit in order to develop new environmentally friendly vehicles. These lines of credit were also utilised in recent years, so this is nothing new. We now need to increase these lines of credit to be able to meet demand and the European Investment Bank is ready to do that. I am working on the basis that the relevant decisions will have been taken before December is out. Finally, I would like to point out once again that we must ensure in our trade policy, too, that we maintain the future readiness of the European motor industry. The competition will be increasingly relocated to regions of the world with expectations of high growth. We will be competing in these regions with manufacturers from other parts of the world who manufacture under significantly cheaper conditions than European manufacturers. Let me be quite clear here: the great advantage that the European manufacturers have in terms of global competition is the fact that Europe will soon already be offering the cleanest and safest cars in the world and it is my hope, when it comes to quality, that the same will apply and that we will also be offering the best cars in the world. Let me add something about the problem at hand, the one that really led to this debate here today in the first place. One European car maker, Adam Opel GmbH in Germany, a 100% subsidiary of General Motors, is currently in very worrying financial waters. Negotiations are under way between Opel and the German government as to whether there may be a state guarantee to solve Opel’s financial problems. Very serious arguments of political policy structure are being put forward to oppose this and I can well understand these arguments since we have an industrial policy that is not based on subsidies and that will continue to operate that way. Our European industrial policy aims, by hook or by crook, to prevent a return to the old subsidising mindset and instead to help industry to grow through predictable, stable conditions for business and to hold its own in competition. The problem at Opel is, however, not one caused by management error, poor production or bad quality cars. This company has, in recent years, made particular efforts to meet the requirements of the future, with high levels of investment in modern technology. The problem arose solely on the back of the crisis situation at Opel’s US parent company. I really do believe that what we have here are extraordinary circumstances, circumstances that do not apply to other manufacturers in Europe and which justify the consideration of extraordinary measures. I would like to reiterate that we are not talking about subsidies here but about a possible guarantee. This is a competitive company we are talking about. From the European point of view, we have no interest in seeing Opel disappear from the marketplace, and this is not just a German problem either. Opel manufactures in several European countries and has a supply chain stretching across Europe. That supply chain is closely connected with all the other car makers, which means that, if a large European manufacturer were to vanish from the marketplace, that would also have consequences for all other manufacturers. As I say, that would not be in our interests while, from the social and political viewpoints, it would clearly not be justified to say that Opel employees have to foot the bill – and I want to make this point clearly – for serious and irresponsible errors that were made at the parent company in the United States. The car market is particularly sensitive to consumer behaviour. It is clear that, in this situation, consumers who are unclear about their own economic future, who do not know whether they will still have a job next year, whether their income will be as high, or whether they will still have their capital, are not going to rush out and buy a new car. That is a well-known and also probably a natural reaction. We will see, then, what decision the governments affected reach, and I say the word governments expressly, something that has not been on sufficient public display hitherto. In Sweden, too, there is a problem with another General Motors subsidiary, Saab, where the problems are structural and considerably worse. In addition, there is a problem in Spain, where the planned production of a new environmentally friendly vehicle is in doubt. From the European perspective, I would say that we will do everything in our power to help European manufacturers get through this difficult time so that they will be able to play their role as a real engine for future growth and sound jobs in the future, too. It is not just the crisis in the financial markets that leads to this restraint, however. There is also uncertainty amongst manufacturers and consumers in respect of the requirements that politics will make of the car of the future. Consumers do not know, for example, whether they can count on tax incentives or allowances if they buy or do not buy certain cars. It is therefore necessary for the statutory conditions for the industry to be cleared up as soon as possible. The situation is clear. The motor industry is a key industry, if not key industry, for Europe and it consists of more than the manufacture of cars. We have to look at the entire supply chain and the entire car market which, of course, also includes the vehicle trade and vehicle repair shops. This is a sector which, all told, employs 12 million people in Europe and has a far-reaching impact stretching into other sectors. The President-in-Office of the Council has already described the decline. I will give you another figure. So far this year, 700 000 fewer new cars have been registered across Europe than last year. This has essentially been over a nine-month period, which means that by the end of the year, the figure will probably have risen to over a million. I am sure you can quite easily imagine the economic consequences of this. We still have no reason to hope that this will change very quickly in 2009. In other words, we must assume that 2009, too, will be a crisis year for the motor industry, which will have significant effects on capacity utilisation, the number of people employed and the ability of car-makers to invest, especially as relates to large investments such as are needed to meet the requirements for low-pollutant and low-consumption vehicles. This economic development has also given rise to an extremely negative development in relation to the environmental situation. The older the stock of cars on the roads of Europe, the greater the pollution produced – and this is a very important point that we must keep an eye on. If we really want to bring down pollutant emissions, in particular of CO and that is our joint priority target, the crucial thing is to replace the old cars currently being driven around the roads of Europe quickly. For a little while now, exactly the opposite has been happening. The stock of cars on Europe’s roads is getting older and older and pollutant emissions are rising. I say to you, in the clearest possible way, that if all the parties involved – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – do not pay very close attention to making cars affordable for consumers in the next few years, this situation will be exacerbated further. We can, of course, already offer zero-emission cars. It is just that no one can afford them. We therefore have to create a reasonable relationship between these points. As you know, we do have the Cars 21 process. Since we recognised the seriousness of the situation at a very early stage, I arranged a ‘motor summit’ as part of this process a few weeks ago in Brussels with car manufacturers, the Member States in which cars are manufactured, the unions, the environmental associations and all stakeholders. Through this, a couple of things that we need to do became very clear."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph