Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-330"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.15.2-330"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as it is now after midnight, I say to you, Mr President and to you, Commissioner, happy Valentine's day!
This is a very good report. I say that without surprise as it is by Mrs Jensen, so of course it is a good report. However, it was a slightly better report before the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs ‘improved it’. Some of the amendments that have come through have not made it a better document. I refer to just two aspects.
The first aspect – taking my life in my hands – refers to some of the amendments of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities. I strongly support women's rights. I strongly support the rights of young people, of old people, of disabled people and many other minorities. But only the women have their own committee to speak up for them. At times, perhaps, their voice drowns out some of the other groups, in my judgment.
I take as an example Article 3.1(1) where the original text said: "To the maximum possible extent analysis will be gender-specific". I agree with that. It should be gender-specific to the maximum possible extent. But the Women's Committee has taken out the words "to the maximum possible extent". Apparently "maximum possible" is not quite maximum enough. I believe it was fine as it was. I use that as an example, but I am still supportive of women's rights. I have my tomato-proof suit on just in case you were thinking of doing something.
The second point concerns the budget. I believe the Committee on Budgets made a reference to the budget increasing from EUR 50 million to EUR 55 million, but on the basis that this should be proportionate to the implementation. Last year's budget was EUR 50 million. Only two-thirds of that was spent; 25% of that was eaten up by administrative costs. To go up from EUR 55 million to 65 million – which is the latest amendment – is, in my view, disproportionate. It is a reflection of the enthusiasm of the committee for this particular project. Sometimes it is all too common that in order to signify the importance of a subject more money is offered to it. I should like to hope that, increasingly, colleagues could recognise that money is not just a reflection of importance, and that it is possible to vote strongly for a report without increasing the money. I fear I may have to wait a long time to see that. Given my advancing years it may be my successors who see that approach first."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs |
member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3,3
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples