Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-439"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.36.2-439"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the Commission’s proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to the layoffs in the textile sector in Belgium and the computer manufacturing sector in Ireland. The support of the rapporteur is accompanied by a number of comments and I would like to restrict myself here to questions of a budgetary nature since we will have an opportunity later to discuss the other points you raise in the report.
This provision has the aim of avoiding a scramble for subsidies and the closure of factories exclusively on the basis of higher levels of public support somewhere else, taking account of the fact that State support represents only one of the factors influencing the decisions of companies regarding relocations and that the other factors such as, for example, wages, skills, taxes and geographical location, often play a more significant role.
Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, it is clearly correct and natural to discuss issues relating to the use of European funds at a strategic level: there can be no doubt about that. In conclusion, I would like to state that funds that were or will be used within the framework of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund go to benefit persons who have been adversely affected or to individual workers such as those in Belgium or Ireland or any other European country, and absolutely not to companies. These are resources designated for supporting persons, individual persons and not companies.
The first budgetary point you raise relates to funding sources. You tell us that the European Social Fund cannot be the only source of funding. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is, from a budgetary perspective, a special instrument, as it does not have its own resources. It is mobilised across accounting periods, although it chiefly involves the designation of available budgetary items and, subordinate to that, the task of proposing to the budgetary authority the mobilisation of sums of money through revisions to the budget. The work is performed on a case-by-case basis, according to need. It is true that the European Social Fund has technically been the main source of funding so far. Here, I would like to state with clear emphasis the word ‘technically’, for the European Social Fund will not be reduced in any way at the end of the accounting period. That is the principle issue.
The second point you raise is not exclusively budget-related, but relates rather to decision making, since you ask that the Commission submit its proposals for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in individual documents. The Commission is well aware of the advantages of this individual approach which completely eliminates the risk of conflict or of the fund being used as a guarantor.
However, it is necessary to take account of the new criteria for eligibility which we discussed this year and which you approved. With these new criteria, it will be necessary in the months ahead to expect a significant increase in the number of applications and it is not certain that the negotiation of the relevant documents will be faster if they are submitted individually. In any case, however, the Commission would like to state that the more advantageous approach, thereby circumventing the risk of certain technical complications in the work, is the case-by-case approach which offers better quality. The Commission therefore notes your interest and fully agrees to adapt its procedures in future accounting periods. In both of these cases, I have therefore provided a clear statement, I believe.
As far as the second question is concerned, the Commission is delighted that Parliament has adopted the decision mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in support of workers who have been made redundant due to over-capacity in the textile sector in Belgium and the computer sector in Ireland. In connection with this, a question was raised about a possible link between the relocation of companies within the EU, the role of EU financial instruments and controls exercised by the Commission over State support.
Firstly, it should be said that the Commission is aware and takes careful notice of the negative consequences of company relocations for workers, their families and regions. It is not up to the Commission, however, to intervene in the decision making of companies where there has been no breach of Community law. The Commission also notes that it does not have the power to obstruct individual companies in their decisions, or to delay them, and companies do not have any general obligation to inform the Commission concerning the legitimacy of their decisions. In this context, the Commission is also aware of the unease surrounding the fact that regional State support, including possible contributions from the structural funds, might be used as a means of luring away commercial investments from other regions.
The Commission notes that the aim of the Community regulations relating to State support is, among other things, to ensure that aid aimed at influencing the decisions of companies concerning the location of investments should be provided only to disadvantaged regions and that such aid should not be used to the detriment of other regions. This problem is also dealt with in the Regulation establishing the general provisions for the structural funds and the cohesion fund and in the guidelines for regional support in the 2007-2013 period aimed at ensuring that these investments make a real and sustainable contribution to regional development.
According to Article 57 of the general regulation on structural funds, Member States must ensure that projects maintain the investment for which a grant is provided for a period of five years after its completion and for a period of three years in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. In the event that a project is altered as a result of changes to the ownership of infrastructure or the ending of production activities and this change influences the nature of the project or the conditions under which it is implemented, or where the changes provide the firm or the public body with an unfair advantage, the grant must be returned. Member States are required to inform the Commission every year of such fundamental changes in their reports on the implementation of operational programmes. The Commission must notify the other Member States.
Moreover, in the 2007-2013 programme period, a special legal provision was introduced which is supposed to ensure that companies to which the procedure applies for returning sums of money paid out wrongfully after a relocation of production activities in a Member State or to another Member State cannot receive contributions from the funds. Similarly, point 40 of the guidelines on regional support specifies that support must be conditional on the maintenance of a given investment in the relevant region for a period of at least five years from its completion date. Moreover, if support is calculated on the basis of wage costs, the jobs must continue for a period of three years from the project completion date. All jobs created through the investment must be maintained within the region in question for a period of five years from the date on which the job was first created. In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, Member States can limit this period to three years."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples