Brussels, 21/04/2006 (Agence Europe) - At the 19 April meeting of the European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee, MEPs were able to hold a discussion with EU Commissioner Vladimir Spidla about the setting up of a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. They expressed doubt about the utility of such a fund, what it could achieve in terms of value-added, and the low level of funding (EUR 500 mil a year). The controversial question of company relocation also came up, in the aftermath of the recent decision by French car manufacturer, Peugeot SA, to close its plant at Ryton in the UK and relocate to Slovakia. The closure will involve the loss of some 2500 direct jobs at Ryton, but these workers will not be able to benefit from the new European Globalisation Adjustment Fund because the relocation is from one EU Member State to another, rather than from an EU Member State to a country outside the EU.
In his speech, Commissioner Spidla said the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was a symbol of EU solidarity to help people losing their jobs or forced to change job or workplace (country) because of globalisation. It comes in addition to other EU funding, rather than replacing it, and should help deal with unexpected crises and also crises which could have been foreseen. The criteria for use of the fund will have to be very detailed, strict and open, he explained, and the existence of a clear link between the loss of jobs in question and changes in international trade, and the job losses would have to have a significant impact on redundancies in specific regions or areas. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund would have to be open to workers from any Member State employed by multinational companies, national companies or SMEs. It is not intended to solve the problems of restructuring in the EU, explained the Commissioner, but rather to help workers hit by the negative impact of globalisation. It is a brand new initiative, and only experience on the ground would demonstrate its full usefulness and fairness of application, he added.
During the debate, Roselyne Bachelot (EPP-France), European Parliament rapporteur on the matter, raised a genuine problem with the allocated budget for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which has been cut from a billion euros in the recent past to only 500 million now. She described this as hypocritical budget policy, adding that she hadn't been able to find any European value-added in the mooted fund. She said a policy has been suggested to accompany national rescue plans but something far more ambitious was required. Jean-Louis Cottigny (PES, France) regretted the fund would not be available for the Peugeot relocation. He explained that the European Social Fund was a horizontal fund to help people in any region, and he couldn't understand the point of what was being suggested for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Elisabeth Schroder (Greens/EFA, Germany) said it would be expensive to run, would involve a lot of red tape, was not a good idea and would not have a suitable budget either! Emine Bozkurt (PES, the Netherlands) asked how the Commissioner was going to ensure the new fund complemented the Regional Fund, adding that the new fund was too late, coming after people have already been made redundant. Jose Silva Peneda (EPP-ED, Portugal) said criteria had to be selective and the most important criterion should be regional, in other words an entire region would have to be hit by globalisation. Derek Clark (Ind/Dem, UK) warned that the fund would lead to a dependency culture. The President of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, Jan Andersson (PES, Sweden) said he agreed with Schrodter that the instruments needed to cope with globalisation already existed, but intervention companies should take place earlier, before anything happens. Action is required in advance, simply giving money after the event is useless, he explained. Joost van Iersel (Dutch Councillor at the European Social and Economic Committee, EESC) backed Commissioner Spidla's idea of detailed criteria (adding that they were still a little 'vague'), and said the EESC would be preparing an opinion the new European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
In response, Spidla raised the controversial issue of relocation for which some measures are inadequate. He said that there was European Social Fund aid, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund could be used but the choice was not always easy. He said globalisation was nothing new, going back at least 300 years and what was required above all was reflection on resources and circumstances, taking account of different experiences. The new fund is not meant to replace industrial policy, he added, noting that it was not a fund to aid companies but rather a fund to help individual workers.