Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Belgium - textile industry; Ireland - Dell - Relocation of undertakings in the EU and the role of EU financial instruments (debate)
The next item is a joint debate on
the report drafted by Reimer Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
the oral question to the Commission on the relocation of undertakings in the EU and the role of EU financial instruments by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs - B7-0226/2009)
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets, I am today presenting the proposal on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in relation to two specific cases, one based on applications from Belgium and one on applications from Ireland. I would, however, like to start by pointing out, once again, that it is the job of the Committee on Budgets to examine whether the conditions for mobilisation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund have been met, and I would like, at this point, to emphasise that, over recent months, there has always been excellent cooperation, including in similar cases, between the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We have also been at pains to take due account of comments and critical suggestions from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and, with that in mind, it is also right to deal with the oral question from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, given the urgency of enquiries on this subject.
You will be aware that the Globalisation Adjustment Fund has a maximum funding amount of EUR 500 million per annum and that it is exclusively for the purpose of providing additional support for those employees affected by globalisation who have lost their jobs and have been affected by the consequences of far-reaching structural changes in world trade patterns. We have made it clear in the resolution, once again, that we continue to challenge the repeated use of funds from the European Social Fund to finance the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and I insist, Commissioner, that you confirm today, once again, that this will not ultimately be at the expense of payments from the European Social Fund.
I would very much like, once again, to call on the Commission to reiterate today the undertaking given to us in the Committee on Budgets - namely to refrain, in future, from tabling applications for the mobilisation of the Fund together, but instead to table them separately, as each case has a slightly different basis and the possibility of a complicated case delaying the approval of another case should be avoided. I hope that you can confirm this again today.
When it comes to the circumstances of the two cases, even on the basis of the altered rules - given that these two applications were submitted after 1 May 2009 - we are talking about the mobilisation of a total of around EUR 24 million. This is intended to provide some cover for the loss of jobs in the textile industry in Belgium and in computer manufacturing in Ireland. In Belgium, there have been a total of 2 199 job losses in 46 companies in the textile industry, all of which were based in two neighbouring NUTS 2 regions, namely East and West Flanders, and in a single NUTS 2 region, Limburg. The Belgian authorities have requested EUR 9.2 million from the Fund in this regard. In respect of Ireland's application, there were, quite properly, a few further follow-up questions from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that are being discussed or have already been partially cleared up through additional information. The application relates to 2 840 job losses in the company Dell in the counties of Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary and in the city of Limerick, of which 2 400 were targeted for assistance. A total of EUR 14.8 million is envisaged for this. Following an intensive debate in the Committee on Budgets, we gave the green light to the mobilisation of the Fund in both cases. I would, however, like to remind you of my introductory comment where I requested that the Commission once again take up a clear position on this and I very much welcome the fact that the very fundamental issues of the mobilisation of the financial instruments from the European budget were put on today's agenda by the Committee on Budgets.
I would then ask the plenary session to support this report.
Mr President, Commissioner, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs wished to combine an oral question on the issue of relocations, notably of multinationals, with the examination of these two requests for mobilisation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund because, in the Irish case, we recognised the difficulties and the contradictions that could arise as a result of using such a fund. At no time did any of the members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs seek to hold hostage or to threaten not to help the Irish workers who are today in a critical situation due to the industrial strategy and the relocation of Dell.
We have simply observed that, in the case in point, even though President Barroso announced, on 19 September, the granting of a EUR 19 million aid package - which we are debating this evening - to Dell, or rather to the workers made redundant from Dell, in order to help them come to grips with the period of retraining ahead of them, the same day, in New York, Dell bought out Perot Systems, which enabled it to increase its share price. A few days later, on 23 September, Commissioner Kroes approved more than EUR 54 million in State aid for the creation of a Dell factory in Poland.
We have questioned both Commissioner Špidla and Commissioner Kroes on this matter. In a long letter, they tell us that they themselves envisaged Dell having two production sites to supply the European market. However, the way I see it, once Dell gave up one of these production sites, we changed nothing as regards the overall evaluation of the company's strategy.
What conclusion can be reached? That, within Dell, none of the European laws that we talk about every day, concerning the rights of workers or of trade unions, is respected. It is therefore genuinely difficult to see the European Union's budget ultimately being used - at a time when we realise the difficulty involved in the budgetary procedure, the difficulty involved in financing the recovery plan - to end up in this paradoxical situation in which we help to increase US shareholders' rate of return on investment but put Irish workers, within the European Union, in Polish workers' shoes. This is certainly not the philosophy that we supported when we supported the implementation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
Commissioner Špidla is certainly not the only one at fault here, but I do believe that this case obliges us to look very closely at the conditions in which the Community budget is mobilised to support the strategies of large companies. This is all the more true since, in the recovery plan that was drafted under the current President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, one of the key measures announced in relation to employment was that of ensuring, as a matter of priority, that workers who had jobs kept those jobs.
Since the Commission was informed of Dell's strategy concerning the existence of two sites, when the prospect of choosing between them presented itself, I believe that a more proactive strategy by the Commission should have led to a negotiation with Dell aimed at the transformation of the Irish site, given that the company's strategy has been to turn a site manufacturing desktop computers, such as existed in Ireland, into a site manufacturing laptop computers, such as currently exists in Poland. It is our view that, if the Commission comes to the aid of multinationals in a scenario of this kind, we should have a more consistent right to speak.
I believe that, taken as a whole, these considerations should lead the next Commission - and particularly Mr Monti, in the mission entrusted to him - to draw up much more proactive proposals on the way in which we use Community funds at a time when we have to deal with relocations which, once again, pit workers, employees of one Member State against those of another Member State, and all of that as part of a multinational strategy that fails to respect the spirit of social legislation as we wish to implement it, around the concept of the social market economy.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the Commission's proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to the layoffs in the textile sector in Belgium and the computer manufacturing sector in Ireland. The support of the rapporteur is accompanied by a number of comments and I would like to restrict myself here to questions of a budgetary nature since we will have an opportunity later to discuss the other points you raise in the report.
The first budgetary point you raise relates to funding sources. You tell us that the European Social Fund cannot be the only source of funding. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is, from a budgetary perspective, a special instrument, as it does not have its own resources. It is mobilised across accounting periods, although it chiefly involves the designation of available budgetary items and, subordinate to that, the task of proposing to the budgetary authority the mobilisation of sums of money through revisions to the budget. The work is performed on a case-by-case basis, according to need. It is true that the European Social Fund has technically been the main source of funding so far. Here, I would like to state with clear emphasis the word 'technically', for the European Social Fund will not be reduced in any way at the end of the accounting period. That is the principle issue.
The second point you raise is not exclusively budget-related, but relates rather to decision making, since you ask that the Commission submit its proposals for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in individual documents. The Commission is well aware of the advantages of this individual approach which completely eliminates the risk of conflict or of the fund being used as a guarantor.
However, it is necessary to take account of the new criteria for eligibility which we discussed this year and which you approved. With these new criteria, it will be necessary in the months ahead to expect a significant increase in the number of applications and it is not certain that the negotiation of the relevant documents will be faster if they are submitted individually. In any case, however, the Commission would like to state that the more advantageous approach, thereby circumventing the risk of certain technical complications in the work, is the case-by-case approach which offers better quality. The Commission therefore notes your interest and fully agrees to adapt its procedures in future accounting periods. In both of these cases, I have therefore provided a clear statement, I believe.
As far as the second question is concerned, the Commission is delighted that Parliament has adopted the decision mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in support of workers who have been made redundant due to over-capacity in the textile sector in Belgium and the computer sector in Ireland. In connection with this, a question was raised about a possible link between the relocation of companies within the EU, the role of EU financial instruments and controls exercised by the Commission over State support.
Firstly, it should be said that the Commission is aware and takes careful notice of the negative consequences of company relocations for workers, their families and regions. It is not up to the Commission, however, to intervene in the decision making of companies where there has been no breach of Community law. The Commission also notes that it does not have the power to obstruct individual companies in their decisions, or to delay them, and companies do not have any general obligation to inform the Commission concerning the legitimacy of their decisions. In this context, the Commission is also aware of the unease surrounding the fact that regional State support, including possible contributions from the structural funds, might be used as a means of luring away commercial investments from other regions.
The Commission notes that the aim of the Community regulations relating to State support is, among other things, to ensure that aid aimed at influencing the decisions of companies concerning the location of investments should be provided only to disadvantaged regions and that such aid should not be used to the detriment of other regions. This problem is also dealt with in the Regulation establishing the general provisions for the structural funds and the cohesion fund and in the guidelines for regional support in the 2007-2013 period aimed at ensuring that these investments make a real and sustainable contribution to regional development.
According to Article 57 of the general regulation on structural funds, Member States must ensure that projects maintain the investment for which a grant is provided for a period of five years after its completion and for a period of three years in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. In the event that a project is altered as a result of changes to the ownership of infrastructure or the ending of production activities and this change influences the nature of the project or the conditions under which it is implemented, or where the changes provide the firm or the public body with an unfair advantage, the grant must be returned. Member States are required to inform the Commission every year of such fundamental changes in their reports on the implementation of operational programmes. The Commission must notify the other Member States.
Moreover, in the 2007-2013 programme period, a special legal provision was introduced which is supposed to ensure that companies to which the procedure applies for returning sums of money paid out wrongfully after a relocation of production activities in a Member State or to another Member State cannot receive contributions from the funds. Similarly, point 40 of the guidelines on regional support specifies that support must be conditional on the maintenance of a given investment in the relevant region for a period of at least five years from its completion date. Moreover, if support is calculated on the basis of wage costs, the jobs must continue for a period of three years from the project completion date. All jobs created through the investment must be maintained within the region in question for a period of five years from the date on which the job was first created. In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, Member States can limit this period to three years.
This provision has the aim of avoiding a scramble for subsidies and the closure of factories exclusively on the basis of higher levels of public support somewhere else, taking account of the fact that State support represents only one of the factors influencing the decisions of companies regarding relocations and that the other factors such as, for example, wages, skills, taxes and geographical location, often play a more significant role.
Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, it is clearly correct and natural to discuss issues relating to the use of European funds at a strategic level: there can be no doubt about that. In conclusion, I would like to state that funds that were or will be used within the framework of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund go to benefit persons who have been adversely affected or to individual workers such as those in Belgium or Ireland or any other European country, and absolutely not to companies. These are resources designated for supporting persons, individual persons and not companies.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to come back to the cases that we are having to deal with under the Globalisation Adjustment Fund. In this regard, we are, of course, working in the interests of workers so as to make them more employable when they are hit by unemployment in their economic sector.
However, let us come back to the Dell case, which Mrs Berès was compelled to talk about. The factory in Ireland focuses on producing desktop computers. The moment that the Commission supported the creation, in Poland, of a factory of the same company focused on producing laptop computers, was the moment - because the market is made that way and because there is a much higher demand for laptop computers - that signalled the collapse of the Irish production plant.
The choice of which of the two sites to produce in was an indication of the difficulties that we were going to have to face on behalf of the Irish workers. Therefore, studying each of the individual cases, we in our working group on the Globalisation Adjustment Fund have called for the Commission to keep a close eye on all of the aid granted to each of the plants, be it at European or at regional aid level, because the European support policies that we are developing must not be used in an unbalanced way and must not backfire on workers.
Thus, we want greater attention to be paid to these problems early on, so that workers do not have to cope with them.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, on 8 January 2009, the mid-west of Ireland, and especially Limerick, Tipperary and North Kerry, experienced an economic trauma they had never seen before. The announcement of over 2 000 jobs leaving the region from Dell, together with thousands of ancillary jobs, represented a loss of historic proportions.
The EU, through the Globalisation Fund, has allocated a fund that will directly help the economically vulnerable in the area. When we vote tomorrow, the EUR 14.8 million will represent a hand-up and not a hand-out to over 2 400 people to help them restart their lives. This will be very welcome.
The money will be used to re-train workers, help start businesses and provide people with job placements, which are very necessary. The very fact that we have Dell workers' committee representatives here tonight watching this shows just how deeply this fund has reached the workers of Dell and how they welcome it so much.
I must, however, stress that we are only halfway there. We now have 18 months in which to spend it, and I am calling tonight on our local Minister in Ireland, the Minister for Enterprise Coughlan, to personally intervene and see that there is a plan in place to spend the money. It is a one-off fund for ordinary working people and they will never get this chance again. Minister Coughlan, please, please get organised and leverage this unique opportunity for the mid-west of Ireland.
I would like to thank the Members, and especially my own colleagues, for their support for the Dell application and ask as well that they will support further applications in similar circumstances coming down the road from Waterford Crystal and SR Technics.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, my first comment is that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a real expression of solidarity between EU citizens and States. Secondly, as an Irish Member, I am indeed very pleased that the workers in Dell who have been made redundant at least now have an opportunity to look forward and to plan for the future. However, as Alan Kelly has said, it is very important to ensure that any programmes or training courses that are put in place are tailor-made to respond to the needs of workers and that the possibility of re-entering the labour market, or setting up one's own business, is the clear objective of any assistance.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the role of Parliament in approving the fund for Dell workers. Despite some of the very serious issues that have been raised here this evening, we did not hold the workers hostage and we approved the EUR 14.8 million application. However, the Commission must ensure that there is coherence in EU industrial policy and that the EU budget is not used to increase shareholder value in some companies, while EU workers pay a price.
Ireland's application for European funds for those left unemployed after the company Dell closed its Irish plant has thrown up a number of questions that need answering.
The fact of a company such as Dell closing a plant in one country and opening one in another is, in principle, the result of normal market forces. However, the various kinds of State aid involved changes things. Dell established itself in Ireland a number of years ago with the help of State aid. Now it is shutting up shop there and opening a plant in Poland, yet again with the help of State aid. In the meanwhile, instead of a social plan paid for by Dell for the Irish workers it has left unemployed, these people are resorting to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. In my opinion, this exposes a serious inconsistency in industrial and employment policy. After all, when all is said and done, how many jobs have been created with all the State aid that Ireland, Poland and the European Union have pumped into Dell?
Therefore, the question is how will the Commission and the Member States together ensure consistency in their policy? In addition, how can we ensure that the Globalisation Fund supports the efforts a company makes for the benefit of its workers instead of largely replacing them?
Mr President, we have always advocated that the EU policy on the relocation of businesses should be reviewed, and we have always believed that the Globalisation Fund is a mere palliative for workers who are the victims of the strategies of multinationals or the lack of an appropriate industrial policy which targets production and good jobs with rights. We therefore advocate new policies on social development and progress.
We also believe, however, that Irish workers should not be doubly hit by the profit and social dumping strategy of the multinational company Dell, which closed in Ireland and received support to establish itself in Poland.
We therefore support this report.
However, we want some answers from the European Commission about the future. We want a radical change in policies, effective monitoring of the support given to multinational companies, a real industrial policy, and a firm investment in the creation of jobs with rights.
(GA) Mr President, first of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Commission for providing this generous fund for Dell's unemployed workers. In particular, I would like to welcome Gerry and Denis who are with us this evening.
Without doubt, great credit is due to the European Union and particularly to the Commission for helping the workers in Dell and I would like to pay tribute to them. Also to former colleagues, two of whom are here tonight, Marian Harkin and Brian Crowley, and also my immediate predecessor, Colm Burke, for initiating this fund back in May.
The Commission made two major changes which were very important to us: reducing the 50/50 funding from 35 for the national government and 65 for the Commission and also reducing the numbers from 1 000 to 500, which will hopefully make funding available to people in Waterford Crystal and SR Technics in due course.
There are two caveats I would add. One is that the two-year extension of the time-span should be extended to three, because many people will be doing third-level degree courses which normally take three years; and the second is that the commencement date should not be the date of application but the date of signing-off here in Parliament and Council.
Having said that, there are just two points I want to make. People are very grateful for what has happened. You have given hope where there was despair. You have shown solidarity instead of isolation, and this fund will be well used and I have no doubt it may well be the best fund and the best funding ever given by the European Commission. Thank you very much indeed.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, several points have been raised, but the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund inspires two feelings in me.
Firstly, I am glad that it exists. European workers need to know that Europe is there for them in difficult times such as we are going through right now. Secondly, I am pleased that Belgium has been commended for the quality of the cooperation between its social partners in the preparation of this matter.
Unfortunately, I also have some regrets about the way in which the EGAF works. Firstly, its success reflects a difficult economic situation in Europe, with all too familiar consequences for society.
Secondly, the Fund's consistency with other aid instruments has been called into question in the case of Dell. In this respect, I fully support the comments made previously by my colleague, Mrs Berès.
Finally, in terms of the budget, the payment appropriations for executing the allocations from this fund must be transferred from other budget items and, as far as I know, must be transferred systematically from the European Social Fund. Although this is made possible by the rate of payment of the Structural Funds, which is not as high as one would like, the Structural Funds must be used for their intended purpose.
To conclude, I call for careful thought to be given to EGAF funding and I sense that the Commission is making a concession, if not directly to allocate the EGAF a full financial basis on a par with the other funds, then at least to ensure that it is no longer financed solely at the expense of the social structural funds.
(NL) I should like to make a brief structural remark on the structural effects of the fund. Naturally, we are delighted with the projects that are on the table today and that await approval tomorrow. Yet there is room for improvement in all of them, of course, which is the reason for my brief remark.
Ladies and gentlemen, the fund sometimes overshoots the mark, the simple reason being that the procedure is too cumbersome, Commissioner. After all, the core objective of the fund is for workers who are affected and lose their jobs to receive rapid support and help in finding a new job. This is not always working at present, as we are unable to act quickly enough, and that is very annoying, particularly for older workers. Indeed, outplacement and relief require a rapid, firm approach, which is totally lacking at the moment.
In addition, the Globalisation Fund suffers from a lack of flexibility, and if you are a worker who is made redundant and is unfortunate enough to come from a company that is not on the list, you will simply not be eligible for support. Every day, we are faced with stories like this from workers who have been affected but who are not eligible, and we struggle to explain - since it is so complicated - why it is no go.
It is my view that a practical solution must be found to this as soon as possible, Commissioner, and that we need a much quicker approach and also, if possible, a formula that will enable us to adopt an 'envelope-oriented' way of working. In my opinion, action must be taken on this in the next few weeks and months.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Globalisation Adjustment Fund helps people to attain further education and qualification. That is the social side of Europe, and it is a good side. The Commission, however, has also examined the subsidies given to Dell in Poland in terms of their compliance with State aid rules. It has approved EUR 54 million in Polish State aid for Dell as this aid supposedly serves to benefit regional economic aid.
This raises the initial question of whether we really have to have competition between ourselves in Europe when it comes to public money. The answer is 'no'! We should change State aid rules so that relocation subsidies are no longer paid, including by the Member States.
I have another question to ask the Commission directly: does Poland's EUR 54 million for Dell also include money from Europe's structural funds? Why, Commissioner, has the Commission not expressed a clear opinion on this? I call on the Commission to truly take its monitoring duty under the Structural Funds Regulations seriously. No European money should be paid out for company relocations within the European Union. What you gave us today, Commissioner, was an evasive answer. You are hiding behind the Polish Government's reports. You have not examined directly, however, whether the European Structural Funds Regulation has really been complied with.
Let us finally obtain transparency and publish every individual subsidy under the structural fund, as happens with agricultural policy. That is the only way that we can truly obtain trust in Europe's structural policy.
(HU) I remember very well when we set up this Globalisation Fund, and even back then, there was a great deal of debate about how it would not be a good idea if, instead of mitigating the losses, the aid paid from the fund helped workers who had been made redundant to re-integrate into the labour market, thereby encouraging, as it were, companies to conveniently take advantage of the relocation facility so that the fund covers the losing parties' costs.
The Dell case is symptomatic of this because our experience shows that, instead of being about mitigating losses and showing solidarity, it seems to act as an incentive, as Dell is receiving assistance both for making redundancies and for relocating. Therefore, what we have here is simply a lack of proper coordination of European funds. The Globalisation Fund is part of competition policy and the Structural Funds. There is no point and no benefit to be gained at all, not to mention that it is contrary to the purposes of the fund, if we use these resources in a contradictory fashion, without any kind of coordination, Therefore, I would draw the Commission's attention to the fact that it needs to reflect on using Europe's public funds in a coordinated manner in this type of case so as to avoid such confusion in the future.
(RO) Mr President, Commissioner, the economic and financial crisis has affected and will continue to seriously affect both the iron and steel and shipbuilding industries. Galaţi, the city I come from, has been hit by the loss of thousands of jobs from the metallurgy industry and shipyards.
Using the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a short- and medium-term solution for supporting workers who are in a tough situation after losing their jobs. I would like to highlight the need for investment in modernising companies from the heavy industry sector so that they can reduce their level of pollution in the future. This will allow us to preserve jobs and therefore protect workers in the long term.
Mr President, like my colleagues, I want to thank the Commissioner and the rapporteur for their work on this. Indeed, the Commission will remember back in January when I and one of my former colleagues, Colm Burke, met him to try and kick-start the globalisation fund for the workers in Dell.
I think it is a clear indication of how much we, at European Union level, put in with regard to treating people first, ensuring that the people are at the core of what the policies are, trying to ensure that their lives are protected and, when there is trouble or difficulty, that the European Union can respond quickly.
On a personal level, I want to thank the Commissioner personally for his active involvement in this, not just here in Parliament or with me personally, but also for going to Limerick and meeting the workers.
And if I could say to other colleagues, who occasionally try to raise red herrings with regard to other issues, that the Globalisation Fund, for all its faults, is a positive from the European Union and one that we should be encouraging to grow and to prosper and, most importantly of all, to go back to the old saying: give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, he can feed himself for life. That is what the Globalisation Fund allows us to do.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to return to Commissioner Špidla's second statement. He said that we cannot influence business decisions. That is simply not true. Of course we do influence business decisions by paying subsidies, making European structural fund payments and paying aid.
That is why, when negotiating the regulation, Parliament debated this very issue of relocation. Ultimately, however, Parliament gave way, with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) regrettably also voting in favour, Mr Pieper, and laid down only five years in the Structural Funds Regulation, which is clearly nothing like adequate given the scale of the subsidies. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance was the only group to say, at the time, that we need at least 10 years for the part of the regulation that the Commissioner cited, which relates to repayment on the part of companies that leave. All I can say here is that this case shows that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance was right.
(PL) Mr President, by mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the European Union is once again jointly facing up to economic difficulties. This time it is difficulties resulting from structural changes in world trade. As is the case with the financial crisis, only integrated action can be effective in combating the effects of globalisation.
Thanks to financial means obtained for people who have lost their jobs, both Belgian textile workers and workers from the Dell factory in Ireland have been given an immediate opportunity to retrain and find new work. The fund is also intended to promote entrepreneurship and self-employment. This help for particular sectors in different countries is an appropriate expression of social solidarity within the EU.
It is a fact that Dell, which justified moving its production from Ireland by the need to find a country with lower production costs, has found such a country which is still within the boundaries of the EU, for Dell has found a location in Poland, in the city of Łódź. The Łódź area is in a difficult situation in terms of employment levels, and the Dell factory has created around 2 000 new jobs. This investment will have a noticeable effect on improving the situation in and around Łódź, and will increase the pace of development in the entire voivodeship.
Mr President, I would like to reassure my fellow Member, Mr Crowley. No member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has questioned the effectiveness, the usefulness of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund. We simply feel that better use can be made of it.
I would also like to come back to one of the comments made by the commissioner, when he said to us just now that fund shopping had to be prevented. This is precisely the problem that we are facing today.
When, I imagine, you prepare to hand over responsibility for this matter, what will you say to the next commissioner in charge of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund? Since, in the case of Dell, we can clearly see that there is a danger of the procedure being distorted and of misuse of Community funds and of the authorisations granted within the context of competition policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, the discussion can, in principle, be divided into two parallel lines. The first of these states that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund does function but that there are reasons for optimising its deployment. The issue of time was mentioned, although in my opinion, this issue has been exaggerated to some extent by the fact that the Member States can react immediately and get the costs back. Nonetheless, I believe that it is a matter that needs debating and that there is also a need to look for a solution in this direction.
The issue of individual budget items was also raised. It is true that at the time the fund was created, this was not actually possible. Nonetheless, the fund can operate in this way. In my opinion, it is therefore necessary to submit all of the questions that can be submitted and, where appropriate, to find a better solution for them than we have found so far. However, none of this puts into doubt the fundamental principle that in times of crisis, the fund functions and provides real assistance.
The second issue raised in the debate is a far more complex issue. This is the issue of delocalisation, the issue of potentially competing subsidies and a series of other issues which are related to this and which are extremely complex. In my opinion, it is correct to address these issues and it is correct to do so based on an in-depth understanding of the facts and I would like to mention a few facts relating to the case of Dell and also relating to some of our thoughts on the overall problem.
The first fact is that, contrary to overwhelming opinion, wage costs per unit of production are markedly higher in Poland than in Ireland, according to the OECD. Wage costs in Poland are thus not lower but higher than in Ireland. This is a point well worth bearing in mind, because drawing conclusions from direct comparisons in complex situations is not a reliable method. I would like to emphasise that if we want to debate these issues, it is necessary to deepen some of our insights considerably, at least with regard to some of the points.
The second issue is that of the Dell case itself. It is true that Dell began its activities in Limerick in 1991, in other words, 18 years ago. It is also true that there is no record of it having received support from any European funds for this operation. There is no information on this, although I cannot exclude the possibility that the firm received support from the regional funds because at that time, in 1990, there were no obligations or methods that would enable us to obtain this information. It is also a fact that the decision to relocate to Łódź was taken by Dell in 2007. It is also a fact that the money used as State aid is Polish money and that this aid was notified in December 2007. It therefore does not involve resources from the European structural funds. In this case - and it does not apply in all cases but in cases that are over EUR 50 million, which was the case here - a very detailed assessment takes place which also takes account of labour market issues. The conclusion of the Commission was that these two operations, which are so far apart in time, are not linked. However, this does not mean anything and does not in any way call into question the fact that issues involving the use of European resources must be discussed in depth repeatedly on the basis of our new information and that it is undoubtedly right to secure a higher level of coherence. In my opinion, the Dell case has served as a good springboard and it is surely right to continue with this debate.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for this debate and for the opportunity to consider with you some aspects relating to the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. In conclusion, I would simply like to state that within the scope of our policies, there is certainly a risk of resources being used in ways that are inappropriate or not entirely optimal, and that this inherent risk will always be present in our policies as they develop. It is therefore up to us to bear this in mind and to have the courage to examine some long-established principles with new eyes and to change these old, long-established and perhaps outdated methods where we find intellectual and technical solutions and a political consensus.
Mr President, I would like to reiterate that we were at pains, in the collaboration between the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs over recent months, to get the procedures up and running as soon as possible on the basis of an opinion from the latter committee - which even set up a special working group for the purpose - in order to make the funds available as quickly as possible, after meticulous examination, in the interests of the affected workers and their close families.
I would like to say, secondly, that, in the course of examining the multiannual financial framework and the new instruments, in the course of the budgetary review and the revision, we also have to examine the functioning and the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, like all the other instruments, and specifically with regard to the effect on the management and on the interaction of the institutions at the national and European level. We need to contemplate how this interaction with the European Social Fund (ESF) could possibly be better shaped. We should therefore be open to all possible discussions that could lead to an improvement.
As far as the sources of funding are concerned, Commissioner, you were, of course, absolutely correct, from a purely technical standpoint, in what you said about the payment appropriations from the ESF. Ultimately, however, I would like the overall picture for the obligations and the payments under the multiannual financial framework, both for the structural funds and for the ESF, to be as we agreed in the overall figures. It must not be the case that, due to deficient implementation, problems in control and management systems and late implementation of these funds, money potentially remains unused and that we then take a slice of that money every year to pay for additional programmes like this. That is not in the interests of the originator.
We will, for the time being, take on board what you said about matters of State aid rules. We did, of course, ask similar questions in another place in relation to Nokia in Bochum and its relocation to Romania. Despite that, I have to say that there is a need, here, to look very closely at the interaction between the Commission and the reporting duties of the Member States. Sometimes I get the impression that, when it comes to these issues, things happen in a similar way to the monitoring of the fishing quotas: each side pushes a little towards the other and there is not, in the end, an efficient system. In this regard, we will stay on the ball and we will also intensively monitor these issues in similar situations and insist that the Commission act in accordance with the regulations and rules that we decided on in 2007.
Finally, my request to you all: please vote in favour of this mobilisation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund tomorrow.
The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday, 25 November 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - (RO) Mr President, I support the report submitted by my colleague, Mr Böge, as I believe that many European workers who have lost their jobs require assistance, including from the EU funds. More than EUR 37 million has been given to 10 275 workers in 2009, which is nowhere near the maximum ceiling of EUR 500 million provided annually for this European fund. I must emphasise that these finances are intended for redundant employees and not companies. The EU must not support financially the strategy of companies which relocate and make workers redundant, especially if the company moves outside the EU or receives aid from another Member State at the same time.
It is vital for us to monitor very closely the way in which company relocations take place. The burden of the social costs involved in the closure or relocation of factories must not be shifted to European taxpayers. Let us not forget that the fund was created to provide additional support to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in the global business sector, and after 1 May 2009, also to those made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. I believe that access to European funds can also provide new Member States with considerable assistance, enabling them to overcome difficulties caused by the economic crisis and in adapting to the single European market's competitive structure.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


10. (


Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes


5. Amending the IIA (multiannual financial framework) (vote)
- Report: Reimer Böge


7. Towards a reform of the World Trade Organisation (
- Before the vote:
(IT) Madam President, I should like to ask, on behalf of the ALDE Group, whether a separate vote is possible on paragraph 42.
(FR) Madam President, I am surprised at this late request by the ALDE Group, which is not in line with the agreement reached between the groups in the Committee on International Trade when it voted on the report.
We shall therefore be opposing the request. We think that, in fact, the proposal in that paragraph to give the poorest small developing countries the chance to receive the proceeds of fines imposed on large developing countries by the WTO is a request that the European Parliament should support.
Thank you for that. I was going to say that the request was obviously received after the deadline and my next question was to be to ask the House whether it was willing to accept that separate vote.
It is now clear, however, so that will not happen.


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)


Follow-up of the Monterrey Conference of 2002 on Financing for Development (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Thijs Berman, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the follow-up to the Monterrey Conference of 2002 on financing for Development.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, the UN is currently debating the Millennium Goals in New York. Unless things change, we shall not achieve those Goals by 2015. That means that poverty will not have been halved, the maternal mortality ratio will not have been significantly reduced, and not all children will be benefiting from primary education. Here and there we are even hearing calls for the Millennium Goals to be shelved. They are not working. Aid fatigue is the problem. That is another term for cynicism and short-sighted self-interest. Insufficient aid is guaranteed not to produce results. And yes, aid programmes frequently fail. And that is the problem. Too little aid doesn't work. It is as if a football trainer kitted his team out with shoes for their right feet only. After a dozen or so matches he says 'you lose every time, you'll never be any good. I'm out of here - keep the shoes, but you're on your own from now on.'
There are plenty of countries where aid does produce results. The scale of the aid is important. In Rwanda substantial aid was given after the genocide. The country has recovered admirably. There are many criticisms one might level against President Kagame - I have plenty myself - but following the terror of 1994 Rwanda offers a lesson in living to the whole world. But without aid its economic growth would have been less impressive. In Mozambique too, aid has produced results; and there are many other examples. Since the Millennium Goals were formulated, 29 million children have been able to benefit from primary schooling. If the world kept its promises, there would not be a food crisis. If every prosperous country spent 0.7% of its GNP on development aid the number of malnourished children would not now be rising again after being in decline for years.
So this report constitutes a sharp reminder by the European Parliament to Member States to keep their promises, especially those Member States which are dragging their feet - France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy, to name just those big Member States. They must increase their aid by 2015, within a clear time frame and in equal increments. No backloading, because a late surge after a series of small increases would mean the poor countries losing out on aid worth 17 billion euros between now and 2015.
One thing has to be clear: public funds alone are not enough to get development going and keep it going. It takes more than that. The European Union has to go on investing in peace and security, in good governance and respect for human rights. In Kenya that has worked, thanks to pressure from Europe, and Raila Odinga is now prime minister. In Eastern Chad EUFOR is having a far harder time of it. But it is vital to harness private funds for public goals. The ability to borrow money is key here. Loans are rarely available to the poorest, and that must change. With development as the goal, there must be equal access for women as well as men, no punitive rates of interest, investment in opportunities for small employers who are very good at networking, all this in association with local organisations. Private banks do not automatically think about these conditions and are slower to lend to women than to men. The European Union can make an enormous difference here through credit guarantees. And the European Investment Bank must lend a lot more than it does at present to microcredit institutions. These things give people a real chance to show what they are made of and consolidate their own existence as independent, self-sufficient citizens. The poor countries also need to be given more of a say in the IMF.
More money is also needed to cope with the consequences of climate change using the carbon emissions trading system. The polluter pays; it is not the poor countries that are responsible for global warming. Aid here must focus on sustainable forms of energy.
Development policy is a central concern of the European Union. The European Union must be a strong player on the world stage, each Member State in its own way but standing together and contributing 0.7% of GNP. That is Millennium Goal number 8, and achievement of that eighth goal will bring the other goals a little closer to realisation.
In conclusion, in the time it has take for me to deliver this speech, eighty people will have died of starvation and fifty children under the age of five will have died from easily curable illnesses.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to express gratitude especially to Mr Thijs Berman for his report. It is very thorough and forward-looking.
I think this report is very timely and can make an impact especially in two areas. One is the UN negotiations in New York on the outcome document of the Doha Review Conference on Financing for Development which should start at the end of November. Secondly, the EU position for the negotiations in the United Nations and Europe's own contribution to a successful outcome of the Doha conference. This position is being currently developed.
In 2002, as you said, Monterrey was a success; the developed and developing countries joined forces and committed themselves to a concrete set of actions, the so-called 'Monterrey Consensus'. The role of the European Union was strong and decisive in order to bring about this successful outcome. I think Europe has been serious in following up the commitments made in Doha, and the Commission has assessed the progress in our Member States annually. In 2005 the EU reviewed and further strengthened our commitments.
The most prominent EU commitments are the time-bound targets to increase the volume of official development assistance with a view to spending, by 2015, 0.7% of the EU's gross national income for development. I think you all know that we decided to get there step by step with the first immediate target in 2006 - collectively reached by the EU. The next deadline is 2010, when our aid should collectively reach 0.56% of GDP.
In June this year (2008) the European Council strongly reconfirmed those commitments, a welcome and essential measure since EU aid levels dropped last year, for the first time since Monterrey. This was a rather negative signal. Against this background, the Commission remains confident that the European Union aid levels will increase again as of 2008 - this year. Multiannual rolling timetables illustrating how each EU Member State wants to achieve the agreed targets are an important tool in this context. We need to see the overall picture but also a country-by-country mosaic.
Since Monterrey, the European Union has also achieved progress on its other commitments. The aim of the Doha Conference is to assess progress made, reaffirm commitments, identify obstacles, but also find ways to overcome these obstacles. It should also be about new challenges, for example climate change and high and volatile food, fuel and commodity prices in the light of the global economic downturn and even financial crisis.
The Commission hopes that at Doha the international community will reconfirm the global partnership on financing for development based on shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries. Therefore it is not one way, but a two-way process.
Doha should lead to an action-oriented forward-looking outcome that facilitates an effective implementation of the Monterrey Consensus in all its dimensions, including mobilising domestic resources, foreign direct investment for development, international trade, external debt of developing countries, financial and technical cooperation and global governance.
The report that you are going to adopt tackles a number of the issues at stake and provides a welcome contribution to the international debate. Thank you for your report and for your attention.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Berman for his excellent report, which sums up well the direction that EU development policy is taking: development has taken place, but there is still a lot to do.
Very recently, the EU published a research paper called Millennium Development Goals at Midpoint, which looked at the implementation of the Millennium Goals and the Union's role in achieving them. The report concluded that there had been positive development but also areas that needed improving.
The EU is the world's largest donor of development aid, accounting for 60% in all. In 2006 the EU reached its official target to channel 0.31% of its combined GNP into development aid.
Despite achieving its 2006 target, the amount of aid is insufficient and forecasts for 2007 show that it is decreasing alarmingly. Most of the EU countries have not increased the amount of development aid they have donated in the previous year, and in some countries that amount has actually fallen by more than 100%. The EU countries, which committed to the Millennium Development Goals, therefore have much to improve on.
According to the EU targets set, the percentage figure for aid needs to rise to 0.7% of GNP by the year 2015. Development problems and poverty will not be automatically eliminated with the 0.7%: there is an urgent need for planning, structure and monitoring. Without cash, however, nothing will happen and it is crucially important that we keep to this goal and our promise.


22. Safety rules and standards for passenger ships (recast) (


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


9. Conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (


3. Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004) (


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)


Creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


Documents received: see Minutes


Follow-up after the review of the "Lamfalussy Process" (debate)
The next item is the debate on
an oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Council: Follow-up after the review of the Lamfalussy process - B6-0011/2008)
an oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Commission: Follow-up after the review of the Lamfalussy process - B6-0012/2008)
author. - (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, thank you very much, Commissioner, for being here. However, we were expecting Commissioner McCreevy - as I am sure you know or suspect. You can tell him that Parliament does not really understand why he is not here today at this debate. I have heard that he thought it was bad form to debate these issues with the European Parliament before discussing them in the European Council, or before the European Council had discussed them. Yet this subject was on the Ecofin Council agenda and, all over Brussels, and perhaps in other European capitals, the draft conclusions are circulating.
Here in plenary, we will be having a debate tomorrow to prepare for this European Council, so why, when it comes to financial markets, can we not prepare these questions with the European Parliament too? This is something we do not understand, unless the Commissioner is currently campaigning in Ireland for the Treaty of Lisbon, but if he is, he could at least tell us. If he is preparing his future, we are interested in that too. In any case, if Commissioner McCreevy wants to advocate transparency in financial markets, I think he ought to start by being transparent about his own diary!
Financial innovation is an important issue. I also think that, in this Parliament, it is time we acted on the need for regulation. We are often told: if you regulate the financial markets, capital will leave the European market. Today, as my American colleague says, I think the only thing we are seeing is not the disappearance of capital, but the disappearance of the consequences of subprimes.
When we approach this debate, we want to do so with three things in mind: obviously functioning financial markets, but also a genuine capacity to finance the economy and an ability to anticipate the needs of financial markets for stability and protection against the systemic risks. It is in this spirit that we are tackling preparations today for the European Council, with the idea that European monetary policy probably reacted well at the start of the crisis, but that today, in a way, the European supervisor has been found out - and that is what bothers us.
When we look at the issues that will be discussed in the next European Council, we wonder: how capable are we really, at European level, of anticipating a crisis? People talk about an early warning system, but what we see is that, in the markets, the people who really have the ability to raise the alarm are called Goldman Sachs. Are we therefore going to learn any lessons from this for the way Europe operates?
I hear a lot of talk everywhere about transparency. We are all in favour of transparency, but what of that call for transparency when, for the last eight months, all the large investment banks have been called upon to give their figures, to give their assessment of their exposure to risk? They cannot do it, because behind it lies a challenge in terms of reputation, and undoubtedly in terms of valuation, a challenge that is extremely difficult to deal with.
Therefore, when I hear people talking about an alternative, the early warning system - I have already said something about this ... As one IMF councillor said to me the other day, the early warning system is a bit like when it says: 'Smoking kills' on a packet of cigarettes. How much does it change your behaviour? Not a great deal.
Of course, the IMF and the Financial Stability Forum have a role to play in this. Who does not know this? However, it should be an alternative to our ability to watch how our systems are working. I should say, on this point, that the surprises for this Parliament are just getting bigger. When we adopted the Ehler report on deposit-guarantee schemes on 13 December, we were told that it was much too complex a business and, anyway, it would not provide any guarantees for how the systems would function.
It seems today from the main conclusions of the Ecofin Council to be a way of escaping the crisis, or in any case, a matter that should be reopened as a matter of urgency. If you do reopen it, Commissioner, or rather if your colleague Commissioner McCreevy reopens it, we will be next in line to examine it. At some point, you perhaps need to listen more carefully to what Parliament says about issues like this one.
Similarly, as regards the credit-rating agencies, we can only refer you - or refer Commissioner McCreevy - back to what we said before. We know that the Commission wants to present proposals for the amendment of the Capital Requirements Directive, or CRD. We will be examining these proposals carefully, but we do not think that this will be enough to give the European Union the system of supervision it needs, unless we take account of all the proposals that have been on the table for some months now.
This also concerns the situation of the supervisory committees - the three 'Level 3' committees, as we usually call them. For these three Level 3 committees, we need a proposal for legislation that gives them a solid legal basis to act and to strengthen their capability, including in dialogue with the other supervisory authorities, because the idea that we are going to bring in the other supervisory authorities without having our own solid system of supervision does not seem very satisfactory to us.
We would like the Council and the Commission together to look at the proposals on the table, not forgetting, of course, the proposals that the Italian Finance Minister, Mr Padoa-Schioppa, made at the Ecofin Council in December. In the same spirit, here too, we would also like to think more proactively about improving our regulation system, out of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
We do not believe the idea of a lead supervisor would satisfy all the Member States. What Parliament should be asking for is a solution that includes all the Member States and that enables each one to feel comfortable with the supervision system.
On all these matters, I would be grateful if you, President-in-Office, and you, Commissioner, would make your comments, bearing in mind that I am obviously merely expressing questions that are being asked in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, since we have not yet deliberated on a proper report.
President-in-Office. - (SL) I would like to emphasise the Council's opinion, which is that the key response to the current situation in the financial market is consistent implementation of the three working programmes already adopted by the Council during the Portuguese Presidency.
As you may recall, last October the ECOFIN Council adopted a report and a set of decisions, as mentioned in the oral question by Mrs Berès. A schedule is attached to those decisions.
I would like to make a brief remark regarding the principles that guide our efforts. The first guideline concerns the procedures and principles for improving cooperation and conduct in international financial crises. One of the key aims in this area is to finalise and sign the new memorandum of understanding which will define common principles and guidelines for strengthening cooperation in the field of crisis management. The Presidency expects the memorandum to be finalised during the informal session of the ECOFIN Council that is to take place in Slovenia next month.
The other main guideline for the work in strengthening measures for financial stability concerns the tools for preventing, managing and resolving crises. The October schedule deals with all the recognised deficiencies, especially the regulations on state aid, the system of guaranteed deposits, the rules on winding-up procedures, and the limitations concerning the transfer of funds, all on an international scale.
I would like briefly to touch on the decisions reached following the review of the Lamfalussy process, adopted at the December session of the ECOFIN Council, and the attached schedule. Although in some respects this matter relates to the efforts to achieve financial stability, the long-term issues associated with the supervision of international financial groups do not have much to do with the current market situation. They mainly concern the national supervisors, who are required to adjust to the conditions of continuously developing financial markets.
I wish to stress the Council's opinion that we need to increase the convergence of supervision in order to ensure equal competition. Here we are mainly concerned with the convergence of supervisory practice and not necessarily with the convergence of supervisory institutions. As regards the response of the economic policy players to the current situation in the financial markets, let me express the Council's conviction that the primary responsibility for correction rests with the individual sector. We should resort to legislative initiatives only if the sector proves incapable of adopting efficient measures.
The ECOFIN Council debated the question of financial stability at its last session on 4 March. At the end of this week the European Council will address this problem and, I hope, will agree with the progress achieved. The ECOFIN Council will continue to follow the situation closely. I have already mentioned the April session of the ECOFIN Council to be held informally in Slovenia. We will of course be pleased to hear proposals from the European Parliament as well.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the oral question tabled by Ms Berès on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs gives me, on behalf of Mr McCreevy and on behalf of the whole Commission, the opportunity to inform you of the ongoing work on the review of the Lamfalussy process.
Throughout last year, the European supervisory model in the field of financial services was examined at the highest political level. These discussions showed that there is a strong political will to strengthen the current supervisory architecture based on the Lamfalussy committee structure. Last year we saw the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission each submit their assessment of the functioning of the current process. It is now time to move forward and to present concrete proposals.
This stems from the Ecofin Council's conclusions and the accompanying road map which were adopted last December. This road map sets out what needs to be done to improve the Lamfalussy process and in particular to improve the committees of national supervisory authorities, the so-called 'level three' committees.
The Commission's work is centred on three main areas following this agreement of the road map adopted last December. First, the Commission was requested to consider how to clarify and strengthen the role of the level three committees and to set out concrete options for the informal Ecofin Council next April in Ljubljana.
The main objective here is to bring forth the contribution that the level three committee should make to supervisory cooperation, supervisory convergence and possibly to crisis prevention and management. The informal Ecofin, by the way, will also discuss the work of a taskforce focusing on crisis management on cross border institutions.
Second, work is ongoing by a working group of the Commission to review supervisory powers, voluntary delegation of tasks, supervisory cooperation and exchange of information. We are working together with the three level three committees on these tasks to deliver the requested results before the end of the year. Considering the enormous scope of these reviews, it is, however, still too early to indicate today what the outcome of this work will be.
Third, the Commission is looking into the possibility of financially contributing to the activities of the level three committees. This is an urgent problem as these committees in general, and in particular the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), have reached their budgetary limits. The Commission will be looking for a stable legislative solution which would ensure continuity in EU financing. In our view, this could best be achieved by agreeing the modalities of EU funding in a decision adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
I have no time to give the Parliament details of the road map adopted last December by Ecofin, but allow me in half a minute just to read some of the commitments that were sent to the Commission. We are working on all of these things. By April 2008 the Commission should prepare an assessment of how to clarify the role of the committees and to consider all the different options towards strengthening the working of these committees.
By mid-2008, the level three committees should for the first time transmit to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council draft work programmes, and thereafter start reporting annually on progress. This committee should also explore the possibility of strengthening the national application of guidelines, recommendations and standards; they should introduce in their charters the possibility of applying qualified majority voting coupled with a comply or explain procedure; they should study the possibilities of introducing a common set of operational guidelines for the operation of colleges of supervisors and monitor the coherence of the practices of the different colleges of supervisors. The level three committees and the Commission should suggest - also by mid-2008 - a timetable for the introduction of EU-wide reporting format for single data requirements and reporting dates.
By the end of 2008, the Commission has also committed itself to conduct a cross-sectoral stock-taking exercise of the coherence, equivalence and actual use of sanctioning powers among Member States. The Commission should consider - also by the end of 2008 - financial support under the EU budget. And, as I said before, it should study the possibilities for EU funding under the EU budget of the development of tools to help build a common supervisory culture by the level three committees. The Commission and the committees should review financial services directives to include provisions to enable the use of voluntary delegation of tasks, analyse the options for voluntary delegation of competences and so on and so forth. So we are working a lot and we should work a lot in the coming weeks, months and before the end of this year.
But we are working at the same time on the financial turmoil by following the road map that was adopted in October 2007 by Ecofin. A report on how we are working on this road map to tackle the financial turmoil consequences has been sent to the European Council for discussions in a few days in Brussels. We contributed to this report with a communication. The Economic and Financial Committee the other day also presented its own report to Ecofin. We discussed both reports at Ecofin level and these reports are on the table for the discussions of the Heads of State and Government next Thursday and Friday.
These reports convey the simple message: in order to respond to the concerns of our citizens and investors we must act swiftly and in a consistent way. We need to restore confidence and stability as soon as possible, having carefully considered all the options and in line with the better regulation principles.
I think everybody acknowledges that this road map, adopted a few months ago by Ecofin, provides the right answer to the problems identified. Work on these road map commitments is on track. In the months to come it will be crucial to stick to the timetable and show that the EU is responding effectively to the crisis.
Our regulatory and supervisory framework must remain robust and keep pace with market developments. Although the Basle II rules have only been fully implemented as of 1 January 2008 further improvements have already been planned in the capital requirements directive. This work has taken on increased importance in the light of the recent turmoil and maybe there will be other aspects of Basle II that we will need to address in the time ahead. We intend to adopt a new proposal for this directive in October so that discussion in Parliament and the Council can take place before the adoption of a new directive in April 2009.
We appreciate very much the involvement of Parliament in all these discussions. We need Parliament's contribution and we appreciate this involvement and this contribution. On 1 April - a few days before the next informal Ecofin - Mr McCreevy will go to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. And, as you know, from a macro-financial stability point of view, I, as the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, am always ready to contribute to the discussions in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and in this Parliament.
Finally, on macro-financial issues, it is true that we need to improve the supervisory and regulatory framework - it is absolutely true at European level and at a global level - but we will not put an end to these bubbles, this excess of liquidity, this risk to financial stability unless we seriously tackle global imbalances. This is the real origin of these imbalances. We cannot solve the current or previous problems, or perhaps the next challenges to the functioning of the global economy, without tackling the global imbalances that are still there.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in 1999 we initiated the European single financial market project and have since been pressing ahead with it. We are on the path to success.
We now have to see that market developments do not overtake political developments. The Lamfalussy Process was a step in this direction. Level 3 could be a way of bringing supervisors in Europe a step closer together. However, I hold on to what Commissioner Almunia has said, and that is: act quickly and effectively.
We are going through a sub-prime crisis or sub-prime turbulence. The Americans - whether they are the SEC, the White House, politicians or the offices of the District Attorney in New York or Washington - have long been drawing up the relevant summaries and thinking about what measures are required, while finance ministers in Europe are still reflecting on which direction they could be taking.
The finance ministers are refusing to push a European supervisory structure, so I shall not be talking about a European supervisor here. What the finance ministers already have to answer for, however - and here I appeal specifically to the Council - is the fact that Europe is not present at the international discussion on how to deal with this problem. Once again we shall ultimately find ourselves merely adopting the rules of other nations, such as the United States, for example.
I would just remind you of the Katiforis report. After Parmalat and Enron, we asked the Commission and Council in 2003-2006 to speak out on rating agencies. The Commission does indeed analyse everything in Europe, but when crises arise, no analysis takes place. On the subject of hedge funds, for instance, no analysis is taking place in the European Union. Hence my urgent appeal: throw off your lethargy, leave your national egotisms behind and keep working on turning the European financial market into a success story not only in Europe, so that what has stood the test here also becomes the rule throughout the world.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, let me first make two preliminary remarks. One is that I would have liked to discuss with Mr Almunia these global imbalances and monetary intervention etc., but we will do that with Mr Trichet in another configuration.
But what I want to stress here is that if we had not had this ECB structure, this system of European banks that intervened in the present turmoil, we would be much worse off. I think that this balance exists in monetary policy - we have had this type of European-level execution of activity, but we do not have it in the supervisory aspects. This is necessary for ex ante prevention instead of only intervention measures.
My second preliminary remark is about the absence of Charlie McCreevy. I think it is unacceptable that he does not want to discuss this with us. Maybe he is dealing with his personal future, but I would say for the 2009 Commission that it would be worthwhile considering having a special Commissioner for the financial markets who will concentrate only on this, because I think this is a really major subject for Europe and for the European Commission.
Then, on the issue of the supervision - the road map you have described - I do not think we disagree on the measures, but I would have expected - and I said this very clearly in the level three committee at the annual joint meeting held in November - that these measures should also have been the elements of a clear proposal for legislative measures from the Commission. The Commission has the right of initiative, they can put proposals on the table, and we would have been able to act swiftly and consistently if we had had a concrete proposal. Because now, a lot of these measures are only voluntary: they are requests to committees which really do not have the powers, the mandates, the competences and the tools to do what we would like them to do, because they are nationally organised and do not have this European mandate. This could have been the subject of a European Commission proposal in this regard.
Why is the Commission so slow in acting? I think one of the reasons is that they want these level three committees to be merely advisory and not the central tool for European supervision. I think this is something we also have to acknowledge: that they play this important role and that we need to have, like the European Central Bank, a real, independent supervisory structure which can deal with these subjects. It should not be only the Commission - as DG Competition - dealing with it, because the Commission is too weak in this respect.
Concerning the Council, I would really hope that you see the sense of urgency and discuss further measures on the architecture of supervision.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, a dynamic and healthy financial sector is crucial for the stability of the European economy and for global competitiveness. This is vitally important for consumers and companies.
With this in mind, we all agree on the need for financial institutions to be well managed and supervised. That is why in 2001 we launched what is known as the Lamfalussy Process, with the aim of putting in place an efficient mechanism for convergence between the various Member States and partners in terms of supervisory practice and financial regulation. Now the Commission is asking us to approve a series of new initiatives relating to the adoption of legislation, the convergence of supervision and the strengthening of cooperation between the supervisory bodies in the various Member States.
We agree with all of this because we need a strong and healthy financial sector that is capable of supporting our economy in the face of the turbulence on the international markets, but we want even more. We want the Savings Directive, which has been in force since 2005, to be examined in order to put an end to scandals such as Liechtenstein, which appears to be hiding tax evaders.
There should not be Member States, linked territories or countries associated with the European Economic Area that, under the protection of banking secrecy, do not exchange information on interest paid to residents of other members of that same common economic space.
Free competition prohibits State aid as a way of promoting the private economy; and taxation of savings should not be a gateway for distorting equal competition. The rules of the game should be the same for everyone and we should therefore eradicate tax havens, as they are anti-competitive and also anti-social.
Madam President, two minutes is not long enough to allow me to take on board all the points. I would just like to be very brief. I am in agreement with many of the things mentioned by my colleagues, especially what Ms van den Burg said about Commission reluctance to give a greater role to level three committees.
I think that it is natural that level three committees have two different roles. They have succeeded well in giving advice on new directives. The advisory role is very well accomplished, but we have not yet found a way to achieve true convergence in Europe. There is a real asymmetry between European convergence and national accountability. Although we wholeheartedly support the Ecofin proposals, the road map and everything that has been produced, we have doubts that they will solve the problems we have in Europe. Is it really possible to achieve fully integrated management with the current supervisory system? I do not think this is the case. We also think that consolidating the supervisory model of the CRD needs much bigger improvements than the ones presented in the road map. It is not enough to have good delegational powers, good information requirements and to solve home host issues. We need to give level three committees more decisive powers. They need to be more independent of the Commission and to be the seed of the new European supervisory network-based system.
Finally, I would like to raise the issue, which was also dealt with by my colleague, Mr Radwan, of US convergence and global consequences. I think we are losing time in Europe. If we do not get our act together, we cannot really be taken seriously by our international colleagues. Even though the financial services dialogue has developed well, we need to further improve our route to convergence in order to show the Americans that we have an equivalent system and can rely on mutual recognition and even substituted compliance. So this global aspect is very important to take on board.
(PT) Madam President, the recent turbulence in the financial markets showed that the trend which gave rise to increased efficiency might also entail greater risks, affecting the soundness of the financial system and the health of the real economy. The review planned for 2007 thus became more urgent and acquired greater political relevance. Today Europe is being asked to produce careful and effective responses to suit the growing complexity of the markets.
It is also known that progress is possible without altering the central architecture of the Lamfalussy method but, as many of my fellow Members have said, one of the most obvious and urgent tools for obtaining improvements involves stronger and more effective coordination between national regulators and supervisors through greater efficiency at Level 3, increasing powers and competence, strengthening the mechanisms for managing turbulent situations and crises and ensuring consistency of principles and practices.
Such coordination is complex and does not arise spontaneously: it requires specific, competent initiatives on the part of the Commission, in response to the recommendations, rightly mentioned here today, made by Parliament on various occasions, and by the Ecofin Council, and set out in the roadmap which has been extensively quoted here.
With the next European Council approaching, the apparent lack of transparency of the initiatives planned by the Commission is surprising. The absence of Commissioner McCreevy is even more surprising when Parliament has expressly asked him for information on the progress of the work.
Finally, I should like to thank Commissioner Almunia once again for his availability, although I still think we need to have a clarifying debate with the Commissioner responsible in accordance with the specific and technical nature of the subject, and the Commission's obligation to propose a specific initiative.
(ES) Madam President, the Lamfalussy Process was created so that Community legislation on financial matters could respond quickly and flexibly to developments in the market and in order to encourage convergence of supervisory practices. Its activities, on all four levels, have enabled the actions of the institutions and the supervisory authorities in the European Union to be better coordinated.
We need to go further.
In order to increase its legitimacy, quality and coherence we need to continue to reinforce the principles of better regulation and democratic scrutiny, improving the integration of its levels and promoting greater inter-sectoral convergence in order to avoid arbitrage. A European perspective and new steps are essential for responding to these needs and especially for adequately tackling the supervision of cross-border groups and moving forward with the prevention and management of international crises.
(DE) Madam President, financial stability through crisis management must now be the standard when developing regulatory convergence. It is about drawing lessons from the financial crises and developments in the finance industry that get out of hand and are no longer compatible with an adequate macroeconomy. This means that a sustainable basis for the Lamfalussy Process still needs to be created in 2008. The requirements of the market operators call for a flexible regulatory procedure. The requirement here has to be that supervisory action is provided for by parliamentary control and Parliament's rights are protected. There is no transparent control without parliamentarianism.
Our path leads straight into a system of European supervisory authorities via the lead supervisor. Only in a European system of supervisory authorities can a balance be found between European financial centres that takes account of all the political and economic interests. The Commission must be a player, not just a moderator, in the intermediate stages here.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the Lamfalussy Process has commendably seen us through over the years to this specific focal point of the financial mechanisms. On the other hand we have continually been trying to keep democratic law-making going there, too, as part of the normal discussion of the Constitution, where we have law-making delegated from the European institutions. We always have the same problem in both cases, namely ensuring that we are able on the one hand to guarantee a modicum of transparency and on the other hand that Parliament is sufficiently involved in controlling this.
Are practical efforts being made to bring the general discussions closer together in the context of comitology and the Lamfalussy Process in particular, so that we do not continue to have this array of processes and another component of transparency is thereby taken from us?
Member of the Commission. - (ES) Madam President, I will try to be very brief, but I wanted to make a few brief comments on some of the speeches that have been made.
First of all, it is clear that there is asymmetry between the national structure of supervisors, the financial supervision structures, and the growing importance of the supranational institutions, and the global, rather than just the European dimension, of the financial markets and financial activity. This asymmetry causes tension and demands a response from the European institutions, from the Commission and from the Council and Parliament. We are not going to discuss this, as I think that we are all in agreement on it.
Secondly, I am not so much in agreement with some speeches that may have suggested that the structures for supervision and for reacting to events in the financial system in the United States are superior to those that we have in Europe. I sincerely believe that the facts do not show this, but rather that there is an argument in favour of the European regulation and supervision structures and the way that the financial markets function in Europe in a whole series of areas compared with what happens in the United States.
Thirdly, the Lamfalussy Level 3 Committees are extraordinarily important. Two of the three Level 3 Committees, the Banking Committee and the Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee, were only created in 2005, even though the Lamfalussy Process began in 1999. We need to make up for lost time, but a great deal of time was wasted before this Commission came in.
Fourthly, how do we move forward? It appears from some of the speeches that some of you think that it is the Commission's responsibility to make the decision to move forward at the right pace. I am not going to hide the Commission's responsibilities, which it does have, as do Parliament and the Council, and of course the Member States.
My experience of taking part in many recent discussions in Ecofin, and also in the Eurogroup, on developments in supervision and regulation and on how to deal with the turbulence in the financial markets and respond to the uncertainty, lack of confidence and failings that we are seeing in the system, my experience, which I can share with you and you can choose to believe it or not, is that the greatest obstacles to moving forward are the positions of some Member States. This is not, however, in Member States that are not suffering the consequences of the financial turbulence.
There is a lot of work being done. I understand why Parliament wants the work to go more quickly, but I think that Parliament has the same information as the Commission and the Council, and therefore knows that a great deal of work is being done in many directions at once. We are in a situation in which improvisation tends to lead to mistakes, and in which trying to do things before we know what needs to be done tends to be counterproductive. There are experiences in Europe and the United States relating to previous supervision problems and previous regulation problems, previous financial problems, that show that it is better to wait for a few months and get it right than speed up the possible response and make the problems that we want to tackle even worse.
One last consideration: the Commission has the right of legislative initiative in the European Union. The Commission is never going to give up its right of initiative, it is never going to hand over this right of initiative to the Lamfalussy Committees. It takes them into account, but it is never going to consider that the Commission's right of initiative should be handed over to the Lamfalussy Committees, and I do not think Parliament or the Council think so either. What is true, as I have said, is that all of us, starting with the Commission, think that the coordination between the Level 3 Lamfalussy Committees, the capacity to adopt criteria and decisions with a system of majority voting, the capacity to react with almost binding decisions, is something that is increasingly evident and increasingly necessary, in view of the extraordinary importance of the task that these committees have to carry out. However, this should not lead us to confuse them with the holders of the right of legislative initiative in Europe.
The debate is closed.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes