Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.2.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, broadly speaking, the report tabled before plenary by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs contains a particularly positive appraisal of the Commission’s recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States. The committee has worked with its usual efficiency and diligence and has supported its proposals with an impressive econometric analysis which I should like to praise here in public.
The recommendation for the year 2000 has been formulated at a time of favourable developments and optimistic prospects for the European economy. The prospects of an increase in the national wage in Europe in excess of 3% for 2000 and 2001 – 3.4% according to the latest forecasts for 2000 – are much higher than the disappointing actual average rates of increase throughout the 1990s. These results, provided that they are realised, offer a window of opportunity, a springboard from which the European economy can launch on to a course which will lead to a permanently high and ecologically sustainable rate of growth. It goes without saying that permanently high rates of growth are the sine qua non for improving the employment situation and strengthening the competitiveness of Europe in the global economy.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs accepts that the requisite rate of progress is best expressed through a growth rate of GDP of 3% or more, that this rate cannot be maintained over time without a substantial rise in the potential product of the EU economy and that there can be no increase in the potential product without productive investment. The Commission, however, has avoided specifying the ratio of investment to GDP. The Committee on Economic Affairs takes the view that quantitative economic targets may be useful, but insists that the fixing of such targets must not undermine the goals established in the stability pact, which are the fundamental guide for the economic policies in the euro zone. Despite this general reservation, the report by the Committee on Economic Affairs expresses the committee’s satisfaction at the restatement in the Commission recommendation of the quantified target, set in the Presidency conclusions of the European Council at Lisbon, of raising labour force participation from 61% to 70% of the population by 2010 and of increasing the participation of women from 51% to over 60% by 2000.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs maintains that the requisite economic growth must be based on price stability and budgetary discipline, reasonable wage increases taking account of price stability, productivity increases and a reduction in unit labour costs, even in the case of reductions in working hours. It also believes in greater liberalisation of competition, strengthening national competition authorities, providing special support for associations of small- and medium-sized enterprises and further developing the single market – especially in the public utilities and financial services sectors. As far as financial services are concerned, having reached a broad consensus of agreement, we shall be tabling a joint amendment calling for the action plan for financial services to be applied more quickly, i.e. by 2003 rather than 2005. The majority of the committee believes that mobilising the market will result in the need to increase investments using purely market instruments. At the same time, however, it approves of the restructuring of government spending in favour of investment which must be justified – when it is justified – by the cost-benefit ratio, but rejects using public investments simply to manage the economy.
On a more general note, the committee approves of the challenges identified by the Extraordinary Council in Lisbon of full employment, a knowledge-based economy, modernisation of social protection systems and dealing with the impact of the ageing population, but expresses its concern at the gap between the key challenges and the often routine specific policy recommendations. It therefore calls upon the Commission and Council to seriously consider the need for a drastic renewal of the intellectual apparatus behind the general guidelines.
The committee also reiterates Parliament’s previous call for an interinstitutional agreement between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on the subject of the adoption of the resolution, although it thanks the Portuguese Presidency for its willingness to cooperate on this matter. This is ad hoc cooperation, however, not cooperation reflected in an interinstitutional agreement, and we consider this a shortcoming in our procedure.
Ladies and gentlemen, we achieved a significant degree of consensus in our work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I should like to stress the general acceptance of the feasibility of the objective of achieving full employment within the next decade. Of course, there are certain differences in our assessment of the best way of achieving these targets. Some of us believe that setting quantitative targets, even without mechanisms for imposing them, would help Europe give concrete expression to its efforts to move in the right direction. This comment applies in particular to the target investment rate, which requires us to increase the potential rate of growth of the economy to 3% on a permanent basis. This percentage is a familiar figure. The Commission set it repeatedly in its studies and it would not have hurt to have included it. We could also have given more categorical expression to the, I believe, general feeling that we need to relaunch the trans-European networks and address the need for new forms of financing for them and the issue of the involvement of private capital and public investment in this sector. Without, in any way, giving the green light to squander public spending, we could have tried to give the public sector of the economy a slightly more positive role than merely that of ‘guard-dog’ for price stability. There are margins for all this, especially through the window of opportunity, if the main risk to our economy is from the probability of a crisis on the American money markets which could paralyse the private investment mechanism. Just imagine, ladies and gentlemen, if that were to happen and we, in the meantime, had forgotten how to handle public investment. The European economy has a huge margin for growth; it is true that the European economy can become more productive, but we need to be bolder in the way we go about it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples