Strasbourg, 05/07/2006 (Agence Europe) - “We need more growth and more and better jobs, otherwise the social face of Europe will become a cold, cynical face, and one which does not match our European aspirations to responsibility shared between the individual and society, to solidarity, and to social balance and cohesion,” Günter Verheugen told the European Parliament on Tuesday, speaking about the economic and social consequences of company restructuring in Europe. The backdrop was the decision by General Motors (GM) to close an assembly plant in Portugal, and the debate itself was held, as fortune would have it, on the very day that Renault-Nissan announced that discussions with a view to possible consolidation with GM could take place on Friday. At the end of June, GM announced that its plant in Azambuja in Portugal, which employs 1,100 people and has received aid from the European Social Fund (ESF), would close by 31 October unless talks with employees and the government could bring a reduction in production costs of almost €500 per car.
More generally, “the future of our jobs is the big issue,” said Mr Verheugen, adding “we must finally look it in the face”. “We need more than ever before an active industrial policy that keeps industry in Europe, he said, before going on “businesses must decide for themselves whether to shut up shop or relocate, and neither the Member States nor the EU can or should interfere - and the Azambuja case is no exception. We do, however, have a number of very clear rules, and I must firmly insist that they be kept”, rules such as, for example, social dialogue. His criticism was aimed at “those who place short-term profits above a sustainable solution” and “those who, under pressure, see pulling out as the cheapest answer, with no regard to the people they are putting on the street” and “those who pay themselves fat salaries but are not worth a cent as responsible managers”. He declared, “I want European businesses that represent out values,” competing at world level, innovating changing their profiles and training staff.
During the debate, José Albino Silva Peneda (EPP-ED) defended free movement, while calling for a regulation bringing a balance between economic growth and the social dimension. He said that it would be good to strengthen the role of the Commission in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and to set up a globalisation adjustment fund. With companies being born and dying everyday, Mr Silva Peneda said that, ultimately, it was important for the birth rate to be higher than the mortality rate. The leader of the PES group Martin Schulz said that the brutality of multinationals, which use people like pawns, should not be accepted and the challenges of globalisation and restructuring had to be approached from a social angle, because, “It is obvious that we have to remain competitive, but if that leads to job losses, it must be compensated for by innovation”. He argued for a targeted investment policy. Although everyone supported the European social model, there were different ways of getting there. It would be wrong to try to protect jobs at all costs, said Lena Ek (ADLE, Sweden). She did not want any “false promises”, but assistance for those affected by restructuring. There should be schemes for lifelong learning, improving language skills, improving trade and strengthening social dialogue to discuss the change with social partners. Belgian Green MEP Pierre Jonckheer denounced the Commission's attitude as not being pro-active or ambitious enough on four points on which he would like responses: the idea of a European works council, the globalisation adjustment fund, assessment of the effectiveness of R&D programmes on key innovations where European constructors seem to be lagging behind (hybrid engines, for example) and, finally, the imposition of certain common minimum rules. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL, Portugal) called for particular care to be paid in the event of restructuring and, concretely, alternatives other than the closure of the Opel factory in Portugal. British Conservative MEP Philip Bushill-Matthews said he hoped there would not be debates of this type every time a company closed: he felt the best thing would be to create a regulatory framework that allowed “when one door closes, others open”. Must there always be restructuring? wondered Jan Andersson (PES, Sweden), appealing to companies' long-term involvement and social responsibility. Helmut Markov GUE/NGL, Germany) added that thought should also be given to the way in which aid was given, and he suggested aid be given principally to R&D, instead of investing in infrastructure and equipment.