Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the European Social Fund (ESF) has a history dating back 40 years. It was originally a key factor in developing the vocational training and the relocation of over 2 million people working at the time in sectors affected by major restructuring.
Lastly, Mr President, I should like to highlight the highly cooperative atmosphere between the Commission and the various interested political groups while this report was being drawn up. This dedicated cooperation made my work a great deal easier. I am grateful to all concerned.
Following the adoption of the first Social Action Programme and the European Single Act, the ESF became concerned with employment protection, worker participation, equal treatment for men and women, health and safety and preventing social dumping. The most important landmarks in the development of European social policy – and, accordingly, in relation to the ESF – came subsequently with the Maastricht Treaty, which enshrined the promotion of a high level of employment as one of the EU's objectives, and with the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties.
The latest such landmark is the Constitutional Treaty, which enshrines full employment, social progress and action to combat exclusion as EU objectives. In light of this development, the Commission tabled a proposal to review the regulation of the ESF, which was based on the following three headings: firstly, the Lisbon Strategy; secondly, the need to simplify texts and procedures; and thirdly, the relationship between the ESF and the European Employment Strategy.
I shall now deal with the first of those, the Lisbon Strategy. With specific regard to the modernisation of the European social model, investment in people, action to combat social exclusion and a set of priority actions such as the establishment of a European Research and Innovation Area, investment in education and training systems with a view to satisfying the requirements of a knowledge-based society and meeting the need to create more and better jobs, I feel that the proposed regulation is an appropriate instrument.
I now turn to the simplification of texts and procedures. Although it is true that the Commission’s proposals already advocate simplification in various areas, such as programming, financial management and cofinancing, it is also true, nonetheless, that there remain many areas in which further simplification and rationalisation are called for. As for the relationship between the ESF and the European Employment Strategy I wish to state that, broadly speaking, both are satisfactorily incorporated in the proposal for a regulation on the ESF.
I should now like to speak about the two amendments that I have tabled to the Commission’s initial proposal. The first of these concerns social inclusion. I feel that issues relating to social inclusion cannot be resolved exclusively under the employment and labour market umbrella, given that there are situations that, at an earlier stage, call for more wide-ranging interdisciplinary measures. I therefore felt that the ESF needed to be more proactive and, accordingly, I proposed that ESF action should not be confined to the sphere of the European Employment Strategy, because it has a broader scope for action. In other words, I wanted to emphasise the ESF’s potential contribution towards social inclusion.
The other significant amendment to the Commission’s proposal currently before Parliament concerns the distinction that was originally made between potential ESF action in ‘convergence objective’ and ‘competitiveness objective’ regions.
I have always believed that the ESF should have as wide a scope of application as possible, because it is an instrument that is designed to help people, regardless of where they come from. Talks between the Commission and the political groups involved have led to a compromise solution that is consistent with policy and that ensures that resources are channelled into regions with the greatest development needs. This is the compromise solution that I now put to this House.
I am aware that there are points on which the Commission and the Council disagree. In my proposal, I have made my opinion clear on these issues. For example, I share the Commission’s opinion as regards transnational cooperation and innovation, and have proposed that financing by the Member States be compulsory. On support for social partners, I also share the Commission’s position, and have proposed that a distinction be enshrined as regards a number of regulatory issues between social partners and non-governmental organisations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples