Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.16.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to express my gratitude to the author of this report on Culture 2007, Mr Graça Moura, for his excellent work and for the sound cooperation between our two institutions.
There are other amendments that the Commission is not prepared to accept. I will mention just a few of them, because they concern the question of access for small operators or small projects. For the Commission, it is essential to strike the right balance between small and large projects and between long-term and short- or medium-term projects. Therefore, the Commission cannot agree with the proposed lowering of the minimum level of grants for cooperation measures for shorter projects from EUR 60 000 to EUR 30 000, because this would lead to an avalanche of project proposals, which could not be co-funded owing to a lack of resources. Already the refusal rate is 70% to 75%. If such an amendment were adopted, it would be even higher. The Commission also disagrees with the proposal to increase the maximum level of Community cofinancing to 70%. We must not forget that our cultural policy is governed by the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept the proposal to decrease the minimum number of partners from four to three for shorter duration projects and to decrease the number of countries from six to four for longer duration projects. Should the number of partners or countries be lowered, it would diminish the visibility of the programme in an enlarged Europe. In spite of that, I hope that the excellent climate of cooperation that has characterised relations between our institutions up to now will continue to help find a mutually satisfying compromise. That is all the more necessary because the new programme should be adopted in time to allow for a timely and smooth implementation.
In conclusion, I very much hope that the next meeting of the Ministers for Culture in November will be in a position to reach a political agreement, leaving aside all budget-related matters. I would like to stress once more the benefits expected from this new culture programme. The programme will actively contribute to the promotion of inter-cultural dialogue, raising awareness of a common European heritage, celebrating the richness and diversity of our cultures, and increasing openness to other cultures.
I am very pleased that the general line proposed by the Commission has been welcomed by Parliament and that the draft report agrees with the main objectives of our proposal. This focus on objectives will enable the programme to deliver more European added value.
Although support for the projects is clearly a key component of the programme, the draft report also approves the Commission’s proposal to go beyond the mere ‘project approach’ and support organisations, studies and the collection and dissemination of information in the field of cultural cooperation. As you know, the Commission proposal does not mention any sector specifically. Our intention is to cover all fields of artistic and cultural life without any prejudice and to promote cross-sectoral activities.
On the budget, I am very grateful that this programme has received a great deal of political support in the House, from both committees and groups, and I am glad to see that you propose even stronger financial backing for this cooperation. I agree that the increase to EUR 600 million proposed by Parliament would make it easier for the programme to attain its objectives and to reach a critical mass, but the Commission cannot amend its original proposal; we are waiting for the agreement on the financial perspective.
I am pleased to say that the Commission is able to accept either word-for-word or in substance some of the other amendments contained in the report.
The Commission can agree with the transfer the memorial action from the culture programme to the citizenship programme and will confirm that in a specific declaration. It is important to continue to support this action. I also agree with the proposal to extend this action to the victims of Stalinist regimes.
On translation, as I said in my introduction, no sector is specifically mentioned. However, we understand Parliament’s request to include a reference to literary translation in the annex to the decision in order to take into account the specific conditions in this field of activity.
Some of you very rightly stressed the importance of our European cultural heritage. That heritage needs to be understood in a broader sense so as to include the values and the ways of life that have defined our identities. We fully understand that concern. Indeed the preservation of cultural heritage is one of the aims of Article 151 of the Treaty.
On the basis of this article, we succeeded last week in promoting cultural diversity in UNESCO through a special convention on this matter. That could be achieved in this programme by including appropriate references in the recitals to the decision. However, we cannot accept cultural heritage being mentioned as a specific objective of the programme, as this would clearly run counter to the non-sectoral, ‘open to all sectors’ approach of the original proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples