Mr President, I think that there is already a consensus emerging from the first few speeches: the Commission’s response and its proposal do not currently respond to the situation. Indeed, one can only note and condemn the increasing number of companies being restructured, along with restructuring programmes and redundancies with disastrous consequences, of course for employees, but also for entire regions that are devastated as a result. Many sectors are affected by this, particularly the steel industry. People say that the context of a slowdown in growth is not favourable. It is true that the majority of companies wear out this argument that restructuring and closures of sites are necessary in order to deal with international competition. However, let us state the fact that company management take a fundamentally financial approach and not always an industrial one, far from it, when defining their strategy. Their aim is to achieve maximum profitability, without worrying about the social or environmental consequences. That often leads to relocations to third countries where rules on such matters are practically non-existent. Commissioner, you referred to Metaleurop. It is true that even though that is about the metal industry and not specifically steel, it is a useful example: this very polluting company is going to shed thousands of jobs without taking any social or environmental responsibility. I think, however, that the situation raises the broader question of what ambitions Europe intends to have in terms of drawing up a new Treaty? Is the European Union going to accept such behaviour from companies which, we should remember, have greatly benefited from European political aid. You of course referred to existing legislation that needs to be applied. Nevertheless, I think that new measures need to be taken to inform unions and works committees about the aid received. Measures also need to be adopted forcing those companies to account for how they have used loans granted and to reimburse them if they do not respect the commitments made. When it comes to enlargement, which was referred to with regard to another company, Europe needs to equip itself with further resources in order to promote an ambitious industrial policy that will ensure that a strong steel sector is maintained and modernised, incorporating the necessary social and environmental standards within a framework of sustainable development. If that is not done, Commissioner, we will not move towards a Union of solidarity but towards a Union of terrible opposition between employees and between citizens. With regard to social governance, we need to legislate even more. I think that new European legislative texts need to be more effective in forcing companies established in the Union to take on their responsibilities. The Commission and the Member States need to adopt a more pro-active strategy in response to industrial restructuring and its social impact. I think that this is also a question of ethics. In a Europe that seeks to defend the fundamental rights of its citizens, can we stand by and do nothing while thousands of employees are thrown out onto the street as if they were just goods? It is precisely the opposite approach that we need to promote in order to have a fresh impetus for industry in Europe. Employees should have new rights in companies at all levels. I am of course referring to the legislation on European committees. However, I think that establishing democracy within boards of directors would prevent many companies from being forced into being restructured and into liquidation by management that is mainly bowing to financial pressure and is far from responding to industrial demands. I therefore think that the Union should force the companies concerned to do more to take into account the alternative proposals from unions before making any decisions.

Political group: GUE-NGL