Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-225"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:ESF (2000 – 2006)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011023.10.2-225"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-23-Speech-2-2262
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (2001-09-03--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this Commission communication is for the most part disappointing, especially because it lacks a clear, concise description of the substance of the intended innovation. Precisely this defect can prove detrimental to the effectiveness of the Regulation. From the point of view of subsidiarity, these innovative actions are to be called into question. What is the specific added value which these actions should yield? In this respect, the communication is bogged down in vague descriptions. There is thus a major risk of the Commission backing useful actions which would also be implemented without ESF subsidy because national or local authorities have already recognised their usefulness. The fact that there is still no assessment report on the innovative actions in the previous programming period (1994-1999) should ring alarm bells with the budgetary authority. Furthermore, the Commission has planned considerable economy measures for the period 2000-2006. Can the Commissioner indicate the reason for these measures? And can the Commissioner also explain why the assessment report is still pending, and when it will be submitted to us? I share the critical tone of the report. A weak area in the report is the pursuit of a European labour market. This is still pie in the sky, given the language barriers, cultural differences and the different national systems for taxes, social security and pensions. Europe’s most important trait is its diversity, and that is why Europe cannot be compared to the United States of America. Experiences with ESF subsidies in the Netherlands indicate that it has been unclear on more than one occasion as to what can and cannot be subsidised. According to the Dutch Court of Auditors, this is partly due to the loose and opaque wording of EU legislation. Even if a conflict of interest is unlikely in connection with support for innovative actions, I still wonder if the present communication has been tested sufficiently for the risk of exploitation and improper use."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph