Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-14-Speech-1-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091214.18.1-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, the discussion has clearly shown Parliament’s support for the micro-financing instrument and I believe there are no fundamental disputes as far as the substance of the issue is concerned. I also believe that there is considerable proximity to the position of the Council as far as the substance of the issue is concerned.
It is the issue of financing that remains open. Of course, the issue of finance is also part of the codecision process, which means that it will be highly necessary and desirable to look for a compromise and I am delighted that the debate has signalled a great willingness to resume negotiations with the Council without delay. At the same time, the debate has indicated the possibility of compromise in some areas.
The debate saw frequent mention and frequent criticism of the Commission over the issue of the Progress programme and its use within the framework of this new instrument. I have to say that the Commission was not faced with a simple issue because it had to move within the framework of the existing budget or within the framework of the interinstitutional agreement. It was only able to use money which was available. When weighing up our decision concerning the use of Progress programme resources, we very carefully considered the consequences and came to the conclusion that although it was not an ideal solution, it was probably one of the possible solutions.
It was repeatedly asserted in the debate that this involved some sleight of hand or shifting of money from one pot to another. That is not the case, since all of the analyses show clearly that resources used within the framework of the micro-credit principle are subject to an estimated five-fold multiplier effect. In the other programme, these resources would achieve an index of 1 while in the micro-credit programme, they can theoretically achieve an index of up to 5. From this perspective, it is not a matter simply of transferring from one pot to another but of a new use for the resources. I would like to reiterate that it was no easy decision, and I do not even think that it was the only decision and, in the debate over a compromise, a decent basis will surely be found, or at least I hope so.
The idea of micro-credit is based on a clear statement that the current financial system does not provide sufficient sources for small and very small enterprises in particular, in other words, that the system does not make use of the human capital that is present in people who belong to so-called vulnerable groups. I consider this to be a great waste of an opportunity and I am therefore delighted that the Commission has proposed this instrument and I am also delighted that Parliament rates it so highly.
As I have already said, the idea is to make use of the human capital that is in people who would normally not be able to make use of their capital in this entrepreneurial way. However, it is also very important to make use of time. In my opinion, holding an unduly long debate would be against the very sense of this instrument which is particularly needed in a time of crisis. I also believe that it will be needed in times when there is no crisis and that it will become a permanent component of European labour market and economic policy."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples