Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-14-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000214.4.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I would like thank the rapporteur of the EQUAL report, Mrs Stenzel, very warmly for all the efforts she has made to master this very complex subject matter on behalf of all of us. EQUAL is a very difficult programme because it attempts to combine so many old programmes and yet aims to view them in a different light, doing so with less money than was available in the previous funds. This is an arduous task. Only, the number of people affected by these programmes has not really dropped. This is why it is so hard to strike a balance, not only between the different countries or the different components, but especially between the different groups listed in the programme, and in fact this is what has preoccupied us to date.
Comments are made here and there to the effect that one group should get more funding than another. I, for my part, have focused on the position of the handicapped and the elderly within the framework of the programme, and I have to say that their position could well have been overlooked altogether if it had not been for the European Parliament devoting special attention to them. Although a few other groups have been mentioned, it is the Member States, in particular, which are on the lookout. For example, I know of one Member State that would like to use a large proportion of the entire programme for one component, namely refugees. I would, therefore, ask the Commissioner to ensure that a balance is struck between these different groups. It should not be the case that one Member State, under the pretext of calling on the subsidiarity principle, can decide that all funding should go to one group. I think that this will have to be monitored closely because otherwise we will end up in that situation against which Mr Meijer has warned us so vehemently, to wit, that vested interests will emerge and that people will think that the money is theirs to spend. This is not the case! It has to be redistributed time and again. It should be used for innovative projects and it should not completely disappear into the Finance Minister’s treasury funds. That is not the intention and that is an important point that we need to bear in mind here.
I believe that the remaining problems that we have faced within this Parliament, and which in large part stem from the fact that it is so difficult to strike the right balance, can be solved. As far as the Commission is concerned, I hope it will be able to join in the compromise that is being concluded here in this Parliament, mainly with a view to reaching a balance. I would just like to underline this – the situation is, of course, a little precarious – Parliament has, for the sake of convenience and safety, placed the EQUAL programme on the back burner for the time being, so that Parliament has yet to be persuaded of the way the funds are to be distributed. I believe that this is actually a good thing. The position of Parliament in this whole procedure is somewhat unclear. The Rules of Procedure do not shed any more light on the matter and that is exactly why this back burner is extremely useful."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples