Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-27-Speech-3-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020227.14.3-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you very much, Mr President, many thanks also to the rapporteur, Mr Mayol i Raynal, and to all the speakers who are present here this evening to discuss an important, albeit statistical issue, which simply concerns the definition of labour cost indexes, which will enable us to better understand what is happening in Europe, how we can compete more effectively, and which are a crucial factor for defining monetary policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have opened a debate which is of certain interest, but which is not exactly a debate on the proposal for a regulation that we presented. I would say that the concern that some of you have expressed about the interrelationship between salaries and inflation, which could be a debate for another occasion, has little to do with what the text of the preamble to the proposal for a regulation actually says. This states that a set of statistics, of which the labour cost indexes form an essential part, is an aspect that is crucial to understanding inflationist processes and the dynamic of the labour market. I would say that this statement is hard to refute. Clearly, we could go into the other issue in greater detail.
With regard to the debate itself, I shall simply refer to the two concerns expressed by Mr Mayol i Raynal.
To what extent, on the one hand, can indexes be drawn up in the future which do not take account of training costs and which exclude this type of cost? Clearly, here we have a purely technical problem, to do with the cost/benefit ratio. These total costs are quite insignificant. Ultimately, they affect less than 2% of total costs and, nevertheless, calculating these training costs would have or would lead to a very significant cost in terms of compiling the statistics as a whole.
For this reason, until we have better information that enables us to do so at a lower cost, we are not in favour of adopting this approach.
Nor are we in favour of not drafting the report that is planned for the end of 2002. I fully understand the arguments put forward by Mr Mayol i Raynal to the effect that we will still be in a transitional period and not all of the regulation will apply 100%. The truth, however, is that we will already have a certain amount of experience in implementing the regulation and, furthermore, we will be able to more clearly highlight its shortcomings and problems.
If the aim of the report is to understand the difficulties of implementing the regulation and adopting the measures necessary for this implementation to take place as efficiently as possible, we believe that maintaining the year 2002 as the target date is still correct. Nevertheless, if Parliament wishes to have additional information at a later date on the implementation of the regulation, it is fully within its rights to request it and Eurostat and I, personally, will be happy to provide it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say. Thank you for your cooperation in approving this regulation, which is important in statistical terms and also important to defining the future of monetary policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples