Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-22-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080522.6.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by expressing my thanks for the constructive negotiations with the Council and the Commission, with the greatest debt of gratitude, of course, being owed to our rapporteur, Mr Lehideux.
In committee and in the trialogue we reached a compromise for the Foundation in Turin, which is to be put on an entirely new footing by virtue of the new regulation. Our main objective in refocusing the Turin-based agency is to strengthen relations between the Foundation and the European Parliament and to improve the overall operational efficiency of the Foundation. This Parliament attaches high priority to the promotion of vocational training in Europe, and we believe that we should no longer merely assess the work of the Foundation on an
basis, as a kind of auditing body, but that we should have a specific upstream part to play in the process of determining the content and shape of its programmes and that we should be able to contribute our opinions.
For this reason, we attach great importance to two points. The first of these is the composition of the Governing Board, and the second is the procedure for appointing the Director of the Foundation. On the latter point we arrived at a sound solution in committee on the basis of a PPE-DE proposal. As the rapporteur said, under Article 10 of the new regulation, the Director will be appointed from a shortlist of at least three candidates submitted by the Commission. Before being appointed, the candidates are to appear before the competent committee or committees of the European Parliament to make a statement and answer questions.
A more difficult issue, and one which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of my group in the present compromise, concerns the composition of the Governing Board. The arrangement set out in the proposed Article 7, whereby Parliament can appoint three non-voting representatives, is inexpedient. We want the chance to be efficient players in the Board's decision-making processes and not mere embellishments. We therefore consider it essential that Parliament should be able to send three specialised representatives to serve on the Board, and it goes without saying that they must have the same voting rights as all the other Board members.
In order to ensure that the Governing Board operates efficiently, we believe it is essential to limit the number of its members. We do not see any compelling need for every Member State of the EU to send a representative. Instead, we should make do with representatives from two thirds of the Member States, applying the rotation rules prescribed by the Treaty of Lisbon. With three representatives each from the Commission, Parliament and the partner countries, the Member States would still be preponderant. After all, a governing board is not a meeting of shareholders but is supposed to represent the body of shareholders in day-to-day decision-making and to take rapid decisions.
May I therefore appeal once again to the Council – whose representative, unfortunately, is not in attendance – to reconsider its position. For the sake of operational efficiency, I ask the House to support our Amendment 10."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples