Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-419"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.15.3-419"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"A number of amendments in fact seek to strengthen the follow-up measures which have already been recommended by the Commission. For example, Amendment No 40 invites the Commission to define a plan for a follow-up in close cooperation with the Member States. That is already the case. In the same vein, I am delighted with Amendment No 42, which allows the Commission to submit new follow-up proposals three years after the adoption of the recommendation. Everything evolves so rapidly that I do think this is a logical course of action.
Other amendments aim to extend the political range of the recommendation and I am very pleased with them. So that is the sense in which I accept Amendments Nos 17 and 18, seeking to associate the candidate countries, as of now, in European cooperation as regards quality evaluation. I recently met the ministers of those countries at the Bucharest Conference, and they expressed a strong desire to be included in that cooperation. Besides, I have to tell you that on examining the evaluation that has been done, it was found that the candidate countries are often well ahead of European averages in terms of educational quality. We should not imagine that we are the best at everything: education in those countries is sometimes remarkable.
I also accept Amendments Nos 1 to 14, which propose new recitals. Similarly, I agree in principle with Amendment 36 which refers to the Eurydice information network. I share the opinion of Parliament that we should base ourselves on existing networks wherever possible. It is certainly true that the Eurydice network, and in particular European unity, can support European cooperation as regards evaluation by making a common platform of basic knowledge available to the various players.
However, I think it is difficult to entrust responsibility for coordinating experience in this area to the networks. Amendment No 36 could therefore be accepted by the Commission subject to rewording to take account of the capacities and characteristics of the Eurydice network. Besides, I think the reference to Eurydice would be better placed in the invitations to the Commission rather than in the part relating to the Member States. Anyway I could agree to a reworded Amendment No 36.
I am also delighted with Amendments Nos 21 to 35, which clarify the invitations to the Member States. Amendments Nos 27 and 31 seek to introduce a reference to benchmarking, but I have to tell Parliament that the benchmarking system still gives ministers problems because the definition is not yet perfect. So ministers and the Commission were very pleased to be able to accept a Dutch initiative to bring experts and ministers together, in the autumn, to find a better definition. Naturally, Parliament will be informed of the results of that conference.
In conclusion, I want to stress that we are on the right road to arriving at a positive decision. I hope with all my heart that the Council will rally to that decision, which is the result of a very broad consensus between Parliament and the Commission. I hope the Council can adopt its common position as soon as possible, and if there are controversial points they could be the subject of compromise at second reading.
I want to thank the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, its rapporteur and its members once again for the quality of their work. Quality is not confined to school; it is here in the European Parliament too. That is something that needs to be said more often."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples