Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-319"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Strengthening economic policy coordination within the euro area – Contribution of public finances to growth and employment2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011003.9.3-319"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-03-Speech-3-3202
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean Lambert2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I want to deal particularly with the issue of public expenditure, quality and employment. The explanatory statement of Mrs Peijs' report is very interesting because it explains the background. We have to beware of chasing the American economic model. One of the things that has made many people within the European Union hostile to the euro is that they have seen its introduction as linked to cuts in public expenditure. We have seen, with the American economic model, the prioritising of the private and the cutting of the public. The result has been a tremendous disparity between rich and poor and high levels of child poverty – unlike in countries which invest in social expenditure and reduce the wealth gap. We know that child poverty is linked to poorer educational attainment, poorer job prospects and so on. We have also seen in that economy a reduction of job security and longer working hours, with the introduction of a flexible contract culture. In the UK, contracting out at lower cost quite often means compensatory tax measures at the lower end of pay, a public subsidy to poor wages from poor employers. The American model also represents an unsustainable pattern of consumption, which will have an economic impact in the longer term. My group believes that Mrs Peijs' report does not look sufficiently at the quality of the contribution of public finances. So we cannot support the report in its current form. Hence the amendments we have tabled. I know that it is very difficult to measure the benefits of public expenditure in the same way we look at the balance sheet of a private health care company for example. Public expenditure is an investment in social cohesion and we are gradually coming to recognise the costs of not investing in that. Indeed, a priority for the European Union now is combating social exclusion. We count as an economic success private spending to compensate for the lack of public expenditure. Every burglar alarm bought, for example, is because we feel we are not safe. We agree that we need to reduce the cost of employing people and to focus on lifting taxation costs for the poorer paid, many of whom are women. But we also need to reduce working hours as part of increasing employment opportunities. It is clear to us that a knowledge-based society which tackles social exclusion – we have to remember that Lisbon also said that – needs greater investment. And where will that come from if there is no significant public expenditure? Employers increasingly want ready-trained employees as part of the flexible contract culture. We consider that public investments can have a very positive value and can help to shift the direction of our economy, as we recognise our ecological responsibilities."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 unknown; Green Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Lambert (Verts/ALE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph