Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-14-Speech-4-109"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Guidelines for innovative ERDF measures2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001214.2.4-109"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-14-Speech-4-1102
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Schroedter2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3,3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-12-16--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my remarks today are chiefly addressed to the Commissioner, because, as we know, innovative measures have always been the Commission's main instrument of progress. They have been the testing ground where the EU institutions have been able to observe how progressive structural policies can best be implemented. If the Commission's proposal on these innovative measures were used to measure the rate at which EU policies are progressing, the result would be similar to that of the Nice Summit, namely a huge embarrassment. However, EU policies in the fields of the single market, employment and cohesion have been considerably more innovative and sophisticated in recent times. That is precisely where the Commission proposal falls down, for it is confined to only two areas of innovation. I say two because, although the proposal identifies three areas, two of them quite obviously belong together and will have to be jointly funded. Such a severe restriction as this has certainly never been imposed in recent years. Moreover, the area of activity in question is one that we have already been supporting over the past few years. So where is the innovation in that? This, I must say, is a great loss, because we shall need to draw on past experience for the new support period, and this experience will be unavailable to us if we take such a cautious line. Major assets, such as the experience gathered in the course of energy-saving schemes for small- and medium-sized businesses, will be cast aside. I could produce a far longer list. Why do we not use innovations to generate real innovative activity? The measures that are proposed are measures which we could support within the framework of the normal programmes. I believe there is no case whatsoever for allowing Member States to support non-innovative measures from the Structural Funds instead of fostering the policy and development of our Union. We have another problem too. The idea of programming rather than selecting projects is not bad. I would even support the idea, but it has not been fully developed. How are local players supposed to find their way through the administrative jungle if the same authorities that are making a hash of structural planning are now expected to take on this responsibility too? How is the Commission supposed to find out where local innovation is really happening if it does not have any control over the system? For that reason, I believe it is absolutely essential for us to ensure that the Commission finds a mechanism with which it can check whether truly innovative local projects are actually featuring in the programmes. I must say that I have looked in vain for this sort of mechanism in the draft communication, which is why this draft is a great disappointment to players at the local level and to me."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph