Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-193"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.5.3-193"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by welcoming Mr Maystadt warmly to this almost empty hall, but I can assure him that even when we have the President of the European Central Bank visiting us, by no means all delegates attend. So the fault does not lie with you.
First and foremost, I would like to propose that we make a tradition of this, just as we do with our debates with the European Central Bank, with Wim Duisenberg. I think it would be a good idea to carry on the tradition of devoting attention to the European Investment Bank here in Parliament, and I hope this will then stimulate more interest than is in evidence today.
A few days ago, you held your annual press conference, and presented the results for 2000. What we have here is nothing new, but it is something that happened at roughly the same time. I think we may be able to do it next year but in any case, I would like to propose that we put the annual report on 2000 on Parliament’s agenda just as soon as we can, and prepare it at least as thoroughly as we have done with this annual report.
Before I make a few comments as to content, I would just like to compliment the rapporteur too. If the press report from last week is anything to go by, he has acquitted himself well. I think the said press report also revealed that the bank has given a great deal of thought to environmental groups in its policy, and to the environment in general, and I believe its activities have contributed to this as well. I myself have concentrated, on behalf of my group, on a number of other key points which, incidentally, largely coincide with those of the PPE-DE Group. My first point concerns job creation, particularly in SMEs and the social sectors, whilst my second point is about transparency and supervision of the EIB’s activities. I will talk about employment first. The employment objective, which is also one of the European Union’s priority objectives – I think Lisbon confirmed this once again – is expressed too implicitly in your plans and reports to my mind, and is not sufficiently visible or verifiable. It seems as if the reasoning prevails that economic growth will automatically create jobs and so there is no need to treat it as a separate issue, let alone consider the quality and sustainability of the jobs. You certainly aligned yourself with the policy initiatives from the European Councils, as we can recognise the incentives created by the Luxembourg Summit and the special action programme promised in Amsterdam, in this report. And then you rightly took up the initiatives from the Lisbon Summit held last year and in particular, launched new initiatives for the knowledge-based economy and new technologies, notably the innovation 2000 initiative. I would now like to present you with the challenge of aligning yourself with new initiatives in the coming year, at the Stockholm Summit scheduled for next month. There, the Swedish Presidency will pursue the line taken in Lisbon, and hopefully also succeed in making an annual tradition of these spring summits on socio-economic affairs. The Swedes are not planning to establish a whole host of new procedures and processes on this occasion. What they
succeeded in doing to my mind, is add a very important feature to the policy agreed in Lisbon, that of attention to the qualitative aspects of employment. The quality of work is an extremely important consideration if people are to be able to function properly in the economy, in an economy based more on knowledge and creativity. Attention must also be given to adequate participation in the labour market. These are very important matters that we must concern ourselves with in the months to come. Perhaps you could take up the challenge of including this investment in quality in a follow-up initiative after Stockholm.
Also on the SME front, I see that in 2000 you very nearly doubled your efforts to EUR 6.2 billion. I think that is to be welcomed, but I would also ask that special attention be given to the SMEs that have difficulty acquiring risk capital through normal channels. These are often highly innovative businesses too and so they do not belong to the very sectors of the economy that
attract capital from the stock market and risk capital, which is precisely why I want to draw attention to those flanking businesses that can provide quality work. That is why we ask that attention be given to the social economy and to the development of what the French so beautifully call
(local service).
I have a final comment to make. Perhaps I should leave it out though because I think I can concur with what Mrs Peijs had to say on the matter, with the exception of her comments on the role of the ECB. What our group
want to do is pursue the discussion on the potential role of the European Central Bank, also with regard to scrutiny of prudential rules and banking supervision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"do"1
"service de proximité"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples