Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.7.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will first of all give my enthusiastic support to the report by my colleague Mr Modrow, in which, to their credit, the two Commission Communications open up the debate on the position, role and responsibilities of State-owned and private enterprises in developing countries. According to Mr Modrow, the report has the virtue of pointing out the contradictions, and sometimes even the inconsistencies, in the European policy.
The Union is not actually impartial on the issue of strengthening or not strengthening State-owned sectors in countries with which it has close relations. Unfortunately, it too often advocates a policy of reducing public costs and deficits in response to the structural adjustment measures dear to international financial institutions, a policy which, in its wording, admittedly seeks to reduce poverty but which in reality can end up being to the total detriment of the peoples concerned. In this way, the incentives and pressures exerted on these countries with a view to privatising their economies has a price, and this is a high price to be paid by the men and women in these countries, a high price for the employees concerned, there as here. There is a chronic lack of connection between economic and financial objectives, and the need to satisfy, above all else, the needs and fundamental rights of these peoples.
In this framework, the often too exclusive call on the private sector is at best a deception and at worst a seizure of economic, social and political power, which slips from the control of the peoples in these countries. We are aware of the drastic social consequences of this. If this is not the case, why then does the Commission always refuse to carry out a transparent, public and openly debated assessment of the effect of liberalisation on employment, on the quality and the extent of the services provided and on working conditions in Europe itself? Yet, such an assessment would render more credible its call for the European Union’s experience on this matter to be considered. If combining a strong and modern State-owned sector and private enterprises could be desirable to meet needs, in particular in the services area, it is nonetheless a fact that the call for public-private partnerships at present actually does more to weaken public enterprises than to create an overall dynamic.
Faced with the jungle of competition, the safeguards – when there are any – that are meant to maintain, strengthen and modernise services of State-owned enterprises are not enough. Without employees being involved in decisions and the destiny of the enterprise, without consulting the peoples and without a genuine code of practice which restricts multinationals involved in developing countries, recourse to private investments amounts to financial takeovers by large corporations, without there being any improvement to the service and often to the detriment of the national interests of these countries. The ever more dominant role of these transnational companies in the world clearly benefits the financial, speculative and stock market system more than the people of the South.
I am, furthermore, surprised that the Commission is furthering privatisation as a means to fight corruption. In this regard, a great deal of experience in Europe and throughout the world far from verifies these assertions. The EU should strengthen its aid to the developing countries according to the criteria of whether enterprises are modernising by moving towards democratisation in decision-making processes, with more transparency in the operation of public service enterprises.
Finally, and I will conclude on this point, the fundamental rights of every person to health and education must remain in the public sphere, just as water, transport, health and energy should remain outside of the GATS."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples