Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-06-Speech-3-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101006.13.3-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Commission as a whole, as do I, believes that our objective is to develop a social market economy. I can say, for me personally and for my portfolio, that in this expression, the ‘social’ is more important than the ‘market’. Of course, at the end of the day, the Commission has to put forward, represent and implement a very balanced approach. However, I have always represented the social objectives and we have taken this very seriously.
Of course, nobody believes that this can be delivered overnight. We have to improve our instruments. I accept what the honourable Member said about the European Social Fund (ESF). It has not been functioning perfectly, but we are in the process of exploring where the ESF should be improved in terms of innovation, what the ESF should be dealing with, and how it should be used. This is all part of a process. There are series of conferences to discuss that, especially in the context of how to handle the situation of the Roma population, among other issues. The Belgian Presidency is holding a conference specifically on how the ESF could be more useful in reducing poverty.
I would be doubtful about establishing a new fund. I think we first have to explore how the social fund could be used, with the available instruments, to improve social conditions. Here, I would underline the role of the European Investment Bank in terms of developing the infrastructure and services in Europe.
Nobody is calling for the privatisation of social services. These are predominantly Member State competences. However, if the EU rules concerning public procurement or State aid, for example, are applied correctly, taking all important parameters into account, they will guarantee quality, cost effectiveness and transparency. These are very important objectives and we should not undermine these important objectives, particularly transparency, when we try to pursue other objectives, however important or relevant those might be.
I hope these points are convincing and that the upcoming events, especially the next conference on SSGI and poverty, will provide ample opportunities to discuss how to proceed. I can assure you that reducing poverty and improving social standards in Europe are very much in the focus of the Commission’s work and very much in the focus of my personal agenda.
I also noted in the discussion that the forthcoming Single Market Act would be received with disappointment by Parliament if it were not to include a very strong social dimension. That is what we have been working on: ensuring that this very important document will be strong on social issues. I have participated in the relevant group of commissioners and have ensured the inclusion of items concerning pensions and other issues that are very important in terms of strengthening the social dimension of the European economy.
However, there are many other issues. I would certainly object to an approach of having only one particular type of solution, i.e. establishing another high-level body in order to ensure that we deliver on social issues.
There was nothing in my answer that suggests an objection to having a dynamic process on SSGI. In fact, we find ourselves in a dynamic process on SSGI in the run-up to the October conference of the Belgian Presidency. I will attend both the opening and the conclusions of that conference, and I am very hopeful that it will bring up a number of issues related to SSGI to guide us forward.
SSGI is treated very seriously in the upcoming European Platform against Poverty which will be published at the end of the year. Mr Courard, the Secretary of State for Social Integration and the Fight Against Poverty, also referred to this in his introduction.
I am open to taking further steps. However, I would first like to see what these events and documents will bring from the wider range of European stakeholders. I would like to stress that, although officially there is some recovery, we are in a very difficult phase of the economic crisis and that there is still a lot of pain inflicted not simply by the crisis itself but also by the measures to exit the crisis.
The Commission has consistently been calling for the interests of social services and vulnerable groups to be taken into account. In recent weeks, I have made many speeches and I have called for caution in terms of the macro-economic policies of Member States.
Fiscal consolidation is inevitable because countries accumulated high debts. However, austerity – especially mindless austerity – and single-minded expenditure cuts are not inevitable. All Member States, even those that are under pressure from the markets, have room to consider how to deliver a measured fiscal consolidation. Everyone has the capacity to balance the various options – expenditure cuts or revenue increases, and they can apply fairness; they can take into account the interests of vulnerable groups. The Commission has been calling for that.
Even in these difficult times, we are calling for social awareness. That is where the European Year has been helping us a lot. This has been an awareness-raising campaign and, to that extent, it has been a success because it helped to deliver the two very important targets of Europe 2020. Without this campaign we would not have been successful in delivering the very ambitious targets on raising employment and reducing poverty in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples