Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.3.3-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I understand that it is not always easy, in a debate such as this, to differentiate between those aspects of our policy which we normally raise in the broad guidelines for economic policies, the stability and growth pacts or the references to the convergence reports, which will be the subject of the third debate this morning.
Secondly, you will have to debate the problems relating to the amendments which you wish to raise in the Pomés report. I will simply say, with regard to two amendments by your Group, that in one of them there is a small error relating to Greece’s entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System. In my view, in Amendment No 4, it would make more sense to adopt a more positive approach with regard to the Greek government’s future obligations than it would to adopt an approach which raises doubts as to its capacity to fulfil its obligations.
In the debate we have just held we rather confused the three elements. I would essentially like to refer to the one which seems essential today, that of the stability pacts, although I will mention certain other points which have been raised.
Firstly, I share Mr Pomés’s view that we need greater coordination, which is not incompatible with subsidiarity, but I am also interested in his additional demands that we work in more detail on expenditure and income, the existence of different scenarios or greater commitments in terms of national policies. However, I would like to remind him that, within the framework of subsidiarity, it falls to the Member States to define their own stability and growth programmes. The Commission must judge them, but it is not our job to give instructions on this point. Nor is it our job to give instructions on the stability programmes or structural reforms, which you have mentioned. These structural reforms in fact fall within the broad guidelines for economic policies.
However, there is a point – the third which you referred to – which lies between the world of structural reform and the tax obligations relating to the deficit and, above all, the stability of public finances, in particular with regard to debt. I am referring to the demographic problem and specifically the ageing of the population. It is true that this is much more than a purely financial problem, but this is the concern which we highlighted in Lisbon.
I would say that, in this case – as in the case referred to by Mrs Randzio-Plath, of the need to compare the quality of programmes and greater harmonisation, or the reference by Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, for example, to deepening tax reforms – in our current thinking there is the reasonable prospect of fulfilling the objectives of the stability and growth programmes, and we believe that we must pay more attention to what we call the sustainability and quality of public finances.
We will present a report in May on this specific point, in which we intend to consider not only the nature of income but also the nature of expenditure as well as how the reduction in public deficit has been achieved and what instruments have been used. These are instruments of a permanent nature which have the same characteristics in each of the Member States. We will also tackle the issue of our future obligations. In many cases the Member States have obligations which are not classed as debt, but which do, in fact, constitute debt in one form or another. All of this will allow us to hold the debate which you have mentioned. I believe that that will be the time to carry out this type of comparison in more depth.
Having said this, I am grateful for the effort you have made to assess the work we have done. I believe that the problems of stability and convergence are basically characterised – as you have correctly highlighted, Mr Pomés – by the fact that, firstly, the objectives set have been met; secondly, because we are following the same line. However, that fulfilment of the objective, especially with regard to the reduction of public deficits, has been less ambitious – surely as a result of an improved economic situation – and we must take advantage of that improved economic situation so that we do not move backwards, but that we make progress in the right direction.
I said that I wanted to make a couple of additional comments on two points that have been raised concerning issues which are not strictly related to this report, but with the previous report. Mr Karas referred to the Greek problem and the problems of sustainability with regard to convergence criteria. In the case of Greece, exactly the same criteria were applied as in previous assessments. I understand that concern, mentioned in the Commission’s report, about the sustainability of inflation, but I would also like to provide some information which may clarify the situation.
According to the latest figures of the harmonised CPI – published on 15 May and concerning the month of April – Greek inflation is improving considerably in comparison to the previous situation: it has decreased from 2.8% to 2.1%; and the unharmonised index also shows better figures for April as compared with March. Therefore, I believe that these concerns about Greek inflation are sometimes excessive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples