Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.11.4-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, during the most recent meeting of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, I was pleasantly surprised. The opinion of Mr Sánchez García, addressed to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, contained a remark regarding the IGC. The draftsman of the opinion held the view that there was no need for a legal foundation for tourism in the Treaty. This was in contrast to the majority opinion held in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Having heard many Members who share the view expressed in the opinion, this was a real relief.
Unfortunately, his text has not survived the vote. It does, however, support my view that I am not, apparently, the only one who cannot agree with the majority opinion.
This brings me to the content of the report. An important aspect of the tourism industry is employment and potential employment. Especially in the southern Member States, the tourist industry is a major source of income. From this vantage point, there is every reason for the government to formulate stimulating measures and a stimulating policy.
The seasonal nature of tourism and the employment fluctuations that this entails also deserve attention.
I am surprised, however, at the fact that many want to achieve this by means of Community policy. This is not desirable, either from the point of view of tourism itself or the stimulation of employment. The discrepancies between the different regions can often be traced back to cultural or historical factors. Within these regions, a huge range of problems have their part to play. It is obvious that mainly local and regional – and, therefore, to a lesser extent national – authorities are best placed to assess the situation and draft appropriate policy. For this reason, I cannot therefore endorse the transfer of powers to European level.
In addition, employment policy in general is also a factor. Here too, the structure of the economy differs for each Member State, and the ways in which the current status has been achieved are diverse. It will not do for one type of policy, probably with many exceptions and adaptations, to be applied. This would mean that the EU would unjustly be removing tasks from Member States and that the Brussels bureaucracy would be intervening unnecessarily. It is preferable for Member States to take measures to stimulate employment themselves. Their expertise, is, of course, superior to that of the Commission. This is why I am very hesitant when it comes to formulating Community measures to promote employment. Even in the tourism industry.
It would really be a nuisance if Parliament were to attempt to achieve this unofficially by extending its powers.
Mr President, you will understand that we cannot assent to the present resolution as it stands."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples