Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-268"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.11.3-268"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to thank and congratulate Mrs Figueiredo and I would like to thank the other Members of Parliament who are not here and who have expressed the opinions of the other committees.
I am unable to accept the remaining amendments for a variety of reasons: some because they are not in conformity with legal requirements; some because they raise issues which fall outside the scope of the decision establishing the programme; and some because they would confuse the message.
Finally, I would like to come to your proposal that the Commission sets up, in addition to the programme committee, a reflection group. We cannot accept this proposal because it is against the comitology rules. But I would like to make the following pragmatic suggestion in response to your concerns because I entirely agree that we must find a way to have close and continuous cooperation. We have already agreed that the Social Protection Committee would meet on a regular basis with the contact group of Members of Parliament. The Social Protection Committee plays a key role in the development of policies of the European Council. Close cooperation between the contact group and the Social Protection Committee will ensure the exchange of views between the Council and Parliament.
On the other hand there could be a link between the contact group and the Commission's officials on a regular basis. They could exchange views, they could cooperate on a permanent basis, and we have already established a similar liaison between Parliament and the Commission for the Unemployment Fund and for the European Social Fund. We had very successful and satisfactory results.
Finally, I would like to respond to your concerns about the involvement of different actors and institutions in the implementation of this programme. I suggest that the annual Round Table we have proposed should be prepared in consultation with representatives of all the institutions which work at European level: the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, the social partners and the European networks of NGOs. I believe that these proposals constitute a pragmatic response to your request. For procedural and institutional reasons it is not possible to incorporate them in the text of the decision.
To sum up, out of the 75 amendments you have proposed, I can accept either as drafted or in spirit 48 of them, namely: Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 42, 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 68 and 74. I can also accept parts of Amendments Nos 14, 36, 40, 45, 53, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72 and 73.
Finally, I would like to highlight the importance of simplification of the procedures. You have focused on that during the discussion. It is true that there is a complexity in the whole procedure but all three institutions wish to reach an agreement as soon as possible. This is what we will try to do on the part of the Commission. We will try to shorten the procedures as much as we can.
It is a very important and constructive contribution and it supports the Commission proposal for a joint decision of the Council and Parliament which will establish a community action programme to combat social exclusion. After the Treaty of Amsterdam and some months after the Lisbon council, we all know that a new context has been created for Community action in the area of social policies and social exclusion and social protection. There is a shift in the political debate at the European level and we can see that there is a strong will to combine social cohesion and competition.
The proposed action programme has a legal basis, Article 137 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and we had a new mandate after the Lisbon Council. This programme has been designed to support implementation of the open coordination method which means that it will be possible to improve knowledge, to develop exchange of information and best practice and to evaluate experience to better combat social exclusion.
There has been a very interesting debate on the role of employment in combating social exclusion and the role of the social reforms and of the structural reforms. There was a discussion about the definition of "poverty" and "social income". The gap is clearly increasing between rich and poor, but unfortunately it is impossible to participate in these discussions since I am obliged to focus on the proposed programme and on the way in which we will cooperate to implement this programme at the European level.
I would like to inform Members of Parliament that, on 4 December, there will be a discussion in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the new social agenda and on what we have achieved during the last year. There will be a very interesting political debate, and social exclusion will be at the centre of this debate.
As far as the proposed programme is concerned and the report of Parliament, I am particularly happy at your strong overall support for this proposal. I can accept a majority of your proposals either in their entirety or in spirit. I agree on your proposal to strengthen the reference to the conclusion of the Lisbon European Council. I also agree on the importance of improving understanding of social exclusion and poverty and of promoting comparable indicators and assessment criteria. I also agree to highlight the importance of NGOs as well as of regional and local actors as you suggest, and of better reflecting their experience on the ground.
There is a reference to the use of the word "poverty". You know there is a political and theoretical discussion on the word "poverty". Of course, social exclusion is the wider notion and social exclusion has three main dimensions: poverty, discrimination and lack of opportunities. But I agree that "poverty" is politically a very strong word and I agree that we can add poverty to social exclusion where possible in the text of the proposal. Unfortunately, we cannot use it in the title of the programme. This is a legalistic problem because, according to the Treaty's wording, the reference concerns only social exclusion and not poverty.
I also welcome the amendment which stresses the importance of coherence between all relevant policies. I welcome the amendments which refer to the Social Protection Committee. Something which is very important is that the Commission has accepted an exceptional increase of up to 90% in the rate of Community co-funding of European networks of NGOs active in poverty and social exclusion. However, I am not able to accept an increase in the budget from EUR 70 million to EUR 100 million.
The budget that we propose is adapted to the aim of the programme and this aim is to encourage cross-national cooperation and mutual learning and not to fund actions on the ground. Through the Social Fund and through the EQUAL initiative Member States' NGOs can be funded for particular projects for particular actions on the ground."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples