Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-09-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050609.7.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I am delighted that such broad consensus, encompassing virtually the whole political spectrum, has emerged among the political groups in Parliament concerning the report on social inclusion. This is no coincidence. It is because we are barely a year into enlargement and there is no doubt that an increase in momentum, in both social and economic terms, would definitely be in the interests of the Union. In this regard, speeding up the process of social inclusion is by no means an issue of secondary importance; the facts show clearly that the new Member States lag behind, to a much greater extent than the old ones, in this area and therefore have a great deal of catching up to do.
I think we all agree that we do not want a two-speed Europe, a Union where the social protection system is highly developed and of a high standard in one half, while in the other half, it is as full of holes as an Emmental cheese and eroding further, year on year due to government financial difficulties, government budget constraints, restrictive measures and similar difficulties. If such a situation were to arise, then there really would be grounds for concern about social dumping, which we all regard as undesirable. This is why it is important in the period that lies ahead to make genuine progress, perceptible to everyone, in the field of social inclusion. This is the only way we can prevent other social groups in the new Member States from falling into social exclusion. If this were to happen, it would have negative consequences in terms of labour market stability, economic output and social cohesion and would give rise to a whole range of other problems.
The report is a kind of inventory of the prevailing problems and it paints a fairly accurate picture of the processes currently under way. As regards disadvantaged sections of society, it covers almost every social group affected, focusing particularly on the situation of older people, women, minorities that suffer discrimination – including the Roma – as well as homeless people, people suffering from addiction-related problems, people living with disabilities, children at risk and immigrants. It places particular emphasis on the close links between the provision of education and training opportunities and improved prospects for the disadvantaged citizens accessing them. In the short time-frame available to me, I would like to continue by highlighting just three of the cardinal issues of the report.
The first key element is that it is crucial in terms of our future prospects of catching up to recognising the particularly close link that exists between job creation and the economic policies promoting it, and the social systems that represent the primary pillars of social inclusion. It follows logically from this that social inclusion policy can only be successful if it goes in tandem with, is based on and builds on, an appropriate economic policy. If we fail to ensure that the two are in harmony, failure in the social sphere will be inevitable.
The second key element in fact is a structural problem. I am thinking here of the indebtedness of local authorities, which has recently accelerated to a dangerous degree and is closely connected to the fact that local authority finances have been unable to keep pace with the expansion of their social duties. This is not a problem that is exclusive to the new Member States; it is a familiar phenomenon in the old Member States too. Of course it is perfectly logical that governments, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, should try to address the majority of problems at local level and the reasoning that most information is always available at local level is perfectly valid. For this to work, however, financial resources need to be provided and this has unfortunately failed to happen in recent years. As a consequence, we now find ourselves in a situation where, for example – if I may cite an alarming case in point – the combined local authority debt of the four ‘Visegrád’ countries has now exceeded the psychological barrier of 10 billion euros. Debt on this scale certainly gives grounds for common reflection at the very least.
For my third point, I would like to refer to the matter of cooperation. It is true – and the report does not dispute this – that social policy is an area of national responsibility of Member States. And so it should be. However, the ability to exercise national competences is by no means impeded by exchanging good practice and sharing information; furthermore, it is in the fundamental interests of all of us. Alongside serious problems, we need to see that there are hosts of good initiatives, innovative ideas that point the way forward and successful projects. Why should we not share these with each other? Unfortunately, the situation at present is that the new Member States pay too little attention to each other and so in most cases, things that could potentially be common treasures, stay hidden and others are unaware of their existence. Appropriate institutional frameworks for this are lacking too. So, in my opinion, these are the three main areas in which we need to make substantive progress. Allow me once again to express my thanks to the political groups and to my colleagues for their highly constructive and helpful support throughout the process of drafting the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples