Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.9.1-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it was not automatic that this House should decide to debate the Socrates and ‘Youth for Europe’ Community action programmes here today.
I therefore call for the so-called technical assistance offices to now, at last, be replaced by public organisations and for clear delimitation of competences between the Commission and the national offices to be guaranteed, in order to eliminate the differences in the individual Member States. The national offices must be equipped with adequate human, material and financial resources in order to effectively perform the tasks entrusted to them.
For we are, after all, agreed that good education is the basis for future economic success and for Europe's ability to compete in the world. The report lists specific measures to deal with the problems; these represent a step in the right direction and are intended to ensure that, in future, the predominant characteristics of the Socrates and ‘Youth for Europe’ programmes will be greater efficiency, transparency and enthusiasm.
It is the case that our new Rules of Procedure state that a topic adopted unanimously by a committee no longer needs to be discussed in plenary, and the Committee on Budgetary Control welcomed my report and adopted it unanimously. I took the view, however, that Socrates and ‘Youth for Europe’, being topics of overall relevance to many areas of European policymaking, have to be presented to a broader public, as this public has had various grumbles and complaints about the way they have been managed. These aches and pains have ended up under the care of the European Court of Auditors, which details in its Special Report a range of major weaknesses that it has uncovered.
The Court of Auditors confirms that some resources have not been used in accordance with the programmes' objectives, and that, in some cases, the goals have not been clearly defined. The necessary advance financing was not in place for certain projects, and this made the work of the project leaders and participants substantially more difficult, if not, indeed, impossible.
An increasing number of schools, universities and other bodies are turning their backs on these programmes, and I can well understand that they do not lack good reason for doing so. Moreover, the disproportionately high cost of administration and the cumbersome administrative procedures bear no relation to their usefulness. The resources made available cannot be allowed to simply get caught up in the administrative machinery instead of finding their way to the people for whom they are made available in the first place.
Other faults found included delays in the payment of grants, deficiencies in overall coordination, and the absence of real structures for monitoring and evaluation, mainly as a result of the programmes' complexity.
That the Commission has delayed presentation of its evaluation report is truly beyond comprehension. It is this that caused the consequent delay in the subsequent report from the Court of Auditors. That is actually inexcusable, as this involved an assessment of a report covering the period from 1995 to 1999 and it will soon be 2003, nearly four years later.
In 1999 we were prepared to follow up the first programme by launching a second, which was to take six years between 2000 and 2006, without giving due time to evaluating the problems I have mentioned. Despite this, my report on the Special Report and on the Socrates and ‘Youth for Europe’ programmes has something very positive to say. I have no doubt that these programmes are important for transnational cooperation in the united Europe, and indeed necessary for it, and that they supplement the education system.
But that is not all: these programmes are, at the end of the day, about Europe's citizens, whether they be students or young workers, and they are being drawn ever closer together, as exchanges of views, what is termed active dialogue, and targeted teaching on European affairs, are promoting mutual understanding in the areas of social affairs, European policy and the economy and are moving deeper European integration further forward.
In the five-year programme that ran from 1995 to 1999, funds totalling EUR 920 million were released for Socrates, and EUR 126 million for ‘Youth for Europe’ – quite considerable sums. This amount doubled in the following programme for the years from 2000 to 2006. That is remarkable. Rather than reducing its significance, the fact that we are on the threshold of enlargement makes our task of considering Europe's young people and their education an even greater one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples