Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-213"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.8.3-213"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, first I would like to assure Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou that all the national action plans on exclusion and poverty submitted to the Commission will be examined in the framework of the indicators and concrete goals agreed in the Stockholm Council. I would like to congratulate Mrs Figueiredo on the excellent work she has done, which is both helpful and useful. I believe that since we all agree how important this programme is, we can agree as soon as possible to start implementing it.
As you will recall, in its amended proposal the Commission accepted in full or in part 31 of the 47 amendments that were tabled by the European Parliament. The common position that we have been examining incorporates 25 of these amendments. With regard to the amendments which are now under consideration, the Commission can accept six of them in full or in part. I refer to Amendments Nos 2, reference to the Social Charter; 4, reference to the compatibility of the proposed budget with the current financial framework; 6, strengthening the comparability of indicators; 7, as it refers to the involvement of the local and regional level, 11, reinforcing the monitoring of coherence between this programme and other policies; and, most importantly, Amendment No 14, referring to raising funding to NGOs under exceptional circumstances to 90%.
The following amendments cannot be accepted. Amendment No 1 proposes adding solidarity among Member States to the list of relevant Community tasks. The fight against poverty and social exclusion in each Member State is a national effort and should be placed in the context of promoting national action plans underpinned by Community-level objectives and policy-oriented cooperation. So it is obvious that these are national efforts and national targets. Amendment No 5, in which the European Parliament is proposing to be involved in the agreement of targets, is not in line with the decisions of the European Councils of Lisbon and Nice.
As regards commitology, referred to in Amendments Nos 3 and 10, despite the fact that our proposal referred to the creation of an advisory committee, I believe that the mixed committee is a fair solution. This is the option that is applied in two other programmes: the equal opportunities and the anti-discrimination programmes. The Commission is assisted by a management committee for horizontal issues concerning implementation, and by an advisory committee when dealing with individual funding decisions.
Amendments Nos 8 and 12 refer to the role of the European Parliament in the open method of coordination in the social exclusion field. I am ready to explore with you all the appropriate means of making sure that the European Parliament can play its full role within this framework in this context. For example, I have already accepted the setting up of a round table, which will bring together the relevant actors.
Amendments Nos 7 and 13 propose to open funding under the programme to innovative projects with a European added value in combating social exclusion. As I have already stressed, the aim of the programme is to encourage close national policy cooperation and mutual learning, and not to fund actions on the ground. Moreover, innovative projects on the ground can be funded by the European Social Fund and by the new EQUAL initiative.
My next comment relates to your proposal in Amendment No 14 to name the actors to be consulted in the preparation of the annual Round Table Conference. I feel that such a list risks being more restrictive, incomplete and less flexible than the admittedly more general term "all the actors concerned".
As regards Amendment No 9, as I said at first reading, the Commission has carefully examined all the questions concerning the budget and is of the opinion that the original proposal for EUR 70 million is an appropriate one. I cannot accept at this stage an increase in the budget. Amendment No 18 seeking to delete Article 7 is not acceptable to the Commission because it will make the execution of the programme very difficult. Amendment No 15 attempts to restrict the implementation of measures, under Strand 1 of the programme, to tenders only, in fact excluding the possibility of promoters of the innovative projects participating in the call for proposals. Amendments Nos 16 and 17 seek to curb the role of the Commission by preventing it from using external expertise as well as technical and administrative assistance.
To summarise, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 2, 4, 6 and 11. It can accept parts of Amendments Nos 7 and 14. It rejects Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples