Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.12.3-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"As the last speaker I have two points to make and one question for the Commissioner this evening. The first point is about making sure that the poorest regions of Europe do not pay the price of enlargement. I disagree with what Mr Purvis said. Areas such as South Yorkshire and Merseyside in the United Kingdom must continue to benefit if they need it, and if they are shown to need it. The second point is to retain some kind of aid for areas undergoing industrial restructuring.
My question is about competition policy as well, and about coherence between competition policy and cohesion policy. I am getting a lot of complaints about the way competition policy is being applied, particularly, recently, about voluntary and community sectoral organisations being treated in the same way as private sector organisations and being told that for projects they cannot receive more than 50% in total in public sector intervention. I want to know whether it is Commission policy to treat the voluntary and community sector the same as the private sector. Does that apply to other public sector organisations? It is an extremely important point because if this is the Commission policy, a number of projects which are going ahead in some our most deprived regions will simply cease to go ahead. It is not what the Commission worked for many years. Regional policy pushed to put these projects in the hands of the voluntary sector and now they seem to be disadvantaged. I would like to know what the Commissioner's position is."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples