Christophe Grudler (Renew Europe, French) is one of the three co-rapporteurs on the draft regulation on the Industrial Acceleration Act (see EUROPE 13821/1). With a vote envisaged on 1 December in the three committees responsible, followed by a plenary vote in December and a possible first trilogue before the end of the year, the French MEP explains the main changes made by the three MEPs (see EUROPE 13933/2). He says he is confident about the outcome of the negotiations, including with the Council of the EU, banking on a possible agreement next March, because the concept of European preference and protection of European industry has now “gained a great deal of ground”. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe - Your draft report will be published this week. What changes does it introduce?
Christophe Grudler – We first wanted to produce a text that works, with no possibility of circumvention, because the aim is to strengthen industrial investment in the European Union, create more jobs and ensure that industry’s share in EU GDP can be maintained or redeveloped. And to ensure there is no circumvention, that means investment must be clearly directed towards Europe.
What changes radically is the geographical scope on which we are working, and that covers the 27 countries of the European Union; then, we authorise the Commission to look at which (third) country could be added on the basis of very strict criteria. These obviously cover reciprocity in access to public procurement, and on that point, we must be very firm.
We have also added one sector, namely construction plastics, which face enormous Chinese competition; so this is about promoting bioplastics and plastic recycling. We have European sectors that are holding up for the time being, but which could face somewhat unfair competition.
Article 16 also makes it possible to add sectors (through delegated acts by the Commission), as is the case for chemicals. We have added the maritime sector, because unfair competition is also very present in shipyards.
And we want to avoid 'screwdriver plants', which consist in producing the essential parts outside Europe and only having two/three things assembled in a European factory so as to make it a supposedly 'European' product.
The concept of the last substantial transformation, provided for by the Customs Code, is insufficient. So we have added elements of value added in Europe, with at least 50% of the product's value added genuinely coming from Europe.
We have also set trajectories for certain materials, such as concrete or steel of EU origin, with shares increasing progressively. That was a request from industry.
Are we not heading for a clash with the Council of the EU, particularly over the geographical scope?
The Council of the EU can draw on our text and analyse the new logic. I think quite a number of Member States can already accept it, because it is common sense. It changes nothing: we have free trade agreements and everything remains in place. But in certain pilot markets, we are introducing this European preference so that we can strengthen our industrial base. That is what all countries do! And there is no reason why Europe should not do the same. There is growing awareness among all Member States.
As regards ‘screwdriver’ companies, how can a new definition be secured that takes greater account of European value added?
The Customs Code is for trade policy, not for an industrial policy. So we can no longer merely refer to it. Obviously, with this criterion of 50% European value added, we must avoid sustainability reporting obligations as far as possible. But I myself met more than 400 stakeholders in three months; so I heard many views and requests from Member States, manufacturers, trade unions... The concept of 'last transformation' is too vague; we need to find a mechanism that cannot be circumvented. And that could indeed be the value added criterion.
You come from Renew Europe, the S&D and the Greens/EFA group. How do you think the EPP, ECR or PfE groups will react?
We consulted just about everyone, in order to get them ‘on board’. And this idea of an industrial accelerator and European preference has really gained ground. There is an assessment shared broadly by everyone. I cannot imagine that we would not be aligned. Some texts are difficult, such as those on greening fleets or CO2 standards for cars, but on the accelerator, I believe a consensus is emerging.