Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-15-Speech-4-009-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111215.3.4-009-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to comment on two points: the crisis derogation and the specific Renault case.
From the legal point of view, the question is whether the requirements for the Globalisation Fund are fulfilled by the Renault application. Ms Matera is saying yes, I know, but this is the legal case. The Commission shares the review with the Council. Renault has made more than 500 workers (this is one of the criteria) redundant as a direct consequence of the global financial crisis. Our contribution (within the nature of the Globalisation Fund) is to be used to co-finance active labour market policy measures. So the only reasonable conclusion today is that the Globalisation Fund should be mobilised and should contribute in full the amount requested by France. Thank you for listening to both the specific points on derogation and the specific Renault case.
As you know, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a new creation, but it was set up before the impact of the financial crisis on the labour markets of Europe became clear. It became operational by 2007 but, at the end of 2008 (as was mentioned by the rapporteur), we changed the original substance of the fund, as a response to the redundancies among workers due to trade liberalisation and the impact of the globalisation of trade, and also to cover workers made redundant as a result of the financial crisis – and rightly so. This was part of a real anti-crisis response on behalf of the European institutions, increasing the cofinancing rate on our side and extending the application of the fund.
This was a key component of our anti-crisis response and also a political message of European solidarity. So far we have received 53 applications under the extended Globalisation Fund application, targeting more than 50 000 workers. But the crisis derogation was, by its nature, a temporary one and – as rightly explained by the rapporteur, Ms Matera – it will expire at the end of the month. As the crisis is not over, the Commission wanted to extend the mandate to extend these derogations until the end of the present financial perspective – that is, until the end of 2013 – and, with the great responsibility here in this room, Parliament adopted this proposal of extended derogation in September without any amendments.
The Council, on the other hand, has failed to extend the derogation, despite – I have to say, although it is not my role to praise the Polish Presidency – the efforts of the Polish Presidency. In practical terms this means the end of the derogation by the end of the year, although that is not the end of the crisis. All the data indicates that the unemployment rate in Europe over the next two years will be not less than 10%. By blocking this proposal, a minority of Member States – with the clear majority in favour of extending the crisis derogation – are putting an end to it. This means that the cofinancing rate will come down to 50% and the scope of the Globalisation Fund will be limited to redundancies caused by trade globalisation. We already have in the pipeline ten new applications for the crisis derogation, affecting many thousands of people in Europe. I am afraid that they may not be able to benefit from the scheme if it is not presented fully by the end of 2011.
I must say that I disagree with some of the arguments used on this occasion by the Member States creating a blocking minority in the Council. The major one was that the problems of unemployment are better targeted at local level. There is a clear misunderstanding here, as the European Globalisation Fund is run by shared management, and the response must be designed locally by the Member States and not in Brussels. So this is a misunderstanding and not a real argument for ending the crisis derogations.
There are also other arguments, which I think are not quite in touch with reality, for example that if we support redundant workers, this will relieve the Member States of a sense of responsibility. But it is cofinancing, and if we see clearly in the statistics that the rich states are better utilising the Globalisation Fund, that means a real problem of cofinancing and sharing responsibility – also financial responsibility – on the part of a Member State.
I also have to say – because this is a clear support of the Globalisation Fund – that so far more than 40% of the workers made redundant due to the crisis but covered by the Globalisation Fund have been able to find another job, so this is working. This is simply working to enhance the labour markets of Europe. But, in practical terms, we have no more crisis derogation in 2012, and I think this is a wrong political message to send to the labour markets: but what can we do? We can only encourage applications under the original trade globalisation criteria, and this is what the Commission can do under the present circumstances.
I have one further, short comment, as this is a joint debate on the specific Renault case. We are taking into consideration the issue, raised by several honourable Members of the European Parliament, of the ex-Renault workers who left the company to join the early retirement scheme and were subsequently negatively affected by the reform of the French pension system. Of course we take their fate into account and are in touch with Renault in order to address the issue. The Renault company has committed itself to taking the necessary measures to ensure that those concerned will not be disregarded and to keep the Commission informed of their actions, but legally the issue has nothing to do with the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Fund. This is a human issue but is not legally an issue of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Fund, as the workers leaving for the early retirement scheme were not targeted for Globalisation Fund support.
France still has four months to prepare and submit a complete report on the implementation of its measures to handle the fate of the workers. The Commission, for our part, reserves the right to carry out an audit to check that the Globalisation Fund application – and this is in the scope of our responsibility – was properly spent. So here is the role of the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples