Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.2.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I will try, as you request, to transform Mr Pronk's pessimism to optimism!
Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are taken on board in spirit by the inclusion of Amendment No 1, and Amendment No 14, I can fully support.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept Amendments Nos 9-13. I will briefly explain why: Amendments Nos 9 and 10 concern the committee. While I am grateful for your support for the Commission's role and the re-institution of an advisory committee, this is a lost fight with the Council. Looking at the legal framework and recent precedents, a mixed committee is a fair compromise. We could look at the mandate in future discussions to see if this could be adopted to meet your concerns as part of a global compromise.
On the annual plans in Amendment No 11, this is an internal Commission question which has no place in a Parliament and Council decision. Amendment No 12 also has to be rejected on institutional grounds and more specifically with reference to the framework agreement on interinstitutional relationships.
Finally, regarding Amendment No 13, we maintain the EUR 55 million initially proposed. We have made a thorough analysis and this is an adequate figure for the activities envisaged.
To sum up, the Commission can accept in full or in spirit Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 14; it can accept in part Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 8; it rejects Amendments Nos 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
It is clear that some issues have to be resolved; some of them are more sensitive than others. I have, however, taken the most positive approach possible to the amendments which you have tabled. Accordingly, I am hopeful that, with your cooperation and that of the Council, we can soon identify a compromise which is acceptable to all. I once again reiterate the urgency of this matter and the Commission's resolve to help find workable compromises.
This programme gives effect to Article 129 of the Treaty which provides that incentive measures may be adopted in order to encourage cooperation between Member States and support their action in the field of employment. Here I very much agree with what Mrs Thorning-Schmidt has already said: it is not a matter of employment or a matter of Council meetings, it is a matter of real cooperation between the Member States.
The programme underpins the European Employment Strategy and provides for activities to ensure its continuing effectiveness. It is important that it is going to be adopted in the near future and I am hopeful that outstanding concerns expressed in the 14 amendments submitted can be resolved satisfactorily.
In its amended proposal the Commission, after the first reading, accepted in full or in part 12 of the 17 amendments tabled by Parliament. The common position which you have been considering, while significantly different in format and presentation from the amended proposal, contains resonances of the ten amendments.
In relation to the amendments which are now under consideration, the Commission can accept nine of them in full or in part. Those are Amendments Nos 1-8 and 14.
I should like to specify exactly what I accept. Amendments Nos 1-3 I accept in full. In Amendment No 4, I very much welcome the reference to special attention to groups subject to multiple discrimination in their access to the labour market and I share your concerns that we should be able to understand, monitor and analyse developments in mainstreaming by establishing indicators. I do not consider it appropriate, however, to enter into details on specific studies to be carried out and cannot accept this part of the amendment.
On Amendment No 5, I am very pleased with the emphasis you introduce with regard to the importance of promoting public knowledge of the European Employment Strategy and further encouraging individuals and organisations at all levels to contribute to enhancing its impact and effectiveness. This programme should and will assist in the realisation of those objectives. However, assigning funding for the ‘projects’ in this context is not appropriate, and I have to reject that part of Amendment No 5. Our diverging views on Amendment No 5 may lie more in the wording used than in any disagreement on its intent.
Local projects involving local actors are funded through Article 6 and the European Social Fund regulation, as well as through another budget line – B5-503. The latter is available exclusively for the funding of local development projects. The analysis, research and evaluation work which it incorporates will include measures, informed by the outcomes of the projects delivered under other budget lines, to assess how knowledge of the European Employment Strategy, and local level involvement in its delivery, might be further improved. I hope that this approach will meet your concerns.
With regard to Amendment No 8, I again fully subscribe to the principle of consistency and accept this part but I cannot agree to specify each linked programme."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples