Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.6.2-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to be frank, it gives me a bad taste in my mouth to be discussing a new employment strategy in the midst of an international crisis situation and maybe immediately before a war in Iraq, but it is perhaps important to do so. The Lisbon process must be kept on the rails even in difficult times.
On behalf of my group, I can tell you that the Commission’s new approach to the employment strategy has been received very favourably in our camp. Increased stability in the employment strategy is indeed necessary. That does not mean that we must be less ambitious, but it does mean that, in future, we shall possibly have to concentrate more on depth and make the employment guidelines more results-orientated.
We also agree with the Commission that there should be more cohesion between the coordination processes. It is becoming increasingly the case that the broad economic guidelines are in practice playing the role of overarching instrument. In our opinion, however, that also means that the economic guidelines must take more account of the ambitions with regard to employment, the fight against poverty, the future of pensions, and health care. In our opinion, it also means that the economic guidelines should actually be economic and social guidelines, on which not only the Ministers for Economic and Financial Affairs express their opinion, but also the Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs, the Ministers for Education and possibly the Ministers for Science Policy. In our opinion, that means that, while the processes must run autonomously, a great deal more coherence is needed between the various political processes. That also has consequences in terms of content, because it means that, in our view, the economic policy must also stimulate economic growth.
Therefore, a lot more work must be done towards innovation, research and development, and investment in people. In the opinion of our group, this means that the Stability and Growth Pact must also fulfil its role as a growth pact and must enable counter-cyclical operation in the Member States and breathe life into the economy.
My group fully agrees with the Commission that greater coherence is also needed in the coordination in the social sphere; that is to say, between the pensions issue, the pension process, the poverty process and the health process. We should therefore like to lend our full support to the intention of the Greek Presidency to activate these processes and give them more continuity.
We fully agree that more attention should be paid to an effective implementation of the employment strategy. We must not let this strategy become a paper tiger. At present, the disparity between the Council’s intentions and reality is still too great: not only with regard to the employment participation of older people, young people and migrants, but also as regards investment in people. For example, we see that there are serious shortcomings in businesses’ training efforts and that people with low skills and older people are treated unequally. That is why we think that the involvement of all the stakeholders is very important. That is why we also say to the Convention that the open coordination method must be incorporated into the Constitution not only with regard to employment but also to the social process, in order to guarantee more democratic legitimacy and transparency.
My group thought that the Mann report was reasonably balanced, reflecting our main concerns, just as it came out of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We have no intention of tabling any amendments, therefore. I have to be frank: the amendments that are now on the table threaten to distort the whole report. This is not, Mr Pronk, a question of political correctness or anything of the sort. In our opinion it is a question of the efficiency of this Parliament. A report like that, with a consensus in this Parliament, may not be sexy, but the intention is to present a report which applies to the whole of the Union and not just to one Member State, and which sets out guidelines for a common policy. Such a report does not lend itself to national political deliberations or ideological debates on specific points of this or that policy orientation. My group is therefore inclined to reject these amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples