Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-07-Speech-1-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030407.6.1-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur from the bottom of my heart for the superb quality of her work and for the support which, throughout her work, she and her colleagues have given the Commission. I think, today, we are going to decide on a great programme. Erasmus was one of the flagship programmes in this area, and still is. I think when we talk about Europe to the citizens and ask them to name a European programme, Erasmus is the programme on everyone’s lips and in their hearts. It is very important to speak of hearts, because identification with Europe also involves feelings, in particular the feeling of belonging to one big family. You need only watch Klapisch’s film, Euro Pudding (l’Auberge espagnole), to understand how important it can be for young people to meet on the basis of common ideals and studies.
With regard to equal opportunities, as a woman, I naturally agree with the idea of equal opportunities for women, but this is perhaps not the focus of Erasmus Mundus. We must observe a certain balance. Amendment No 5 seems to me to be balanced, as does Amendment No 23, at least in spirit. On the other hand, I think that Amendments Nos 61, 64 and 65 are in danger of creating excessive operational focus on these issues.
As far as comitology is concerned, we cannot accept Amendment No 42 which seeks to associate competent bodies with the work of the committee. Nor can we accept Amendment No 33, which requires excessive involvement of these bodies in implementing the programme.
As for the budget, I fully understand what the rapporteur said. For now, the Commission can only maintain its initial proposal. It could, however, review its position in light of a possible increase in the ceiling of heading 3.
A large number of amendments aim to clarify, simplify or reinforce the text. The Commission accepts them, with the exception of Amendments Nos 27 and 30, where the attempt to simplify the text would detract from the meaning.
The Community’s role in programmes is, of course, laid down by Article 149 of the Treaty, and is also determined by respect for the autonomy of higher education institutions, which is a
condition. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept any amendments which jeopardise this autonomy
Most of the amendments concerning the selection process have been accepted, with the exception of Amendments Nos 52, 54 and 58, because these impose criteria that run counter to the main objective of quality – and quality is extremely important for Erasmus Mundus – and Amendments No 55 and 57, because they introduce an excessive level of operational detail for a legislative text.
Nor can the concept of specific regions contained in Amendment No 3 be accepted. This is also the case where Amendment No 6 is concerned, which makes a premature reference to future programmes, and Amendments Nos 19, 72 and 73, since they restrict the definition of visiting scholars. Nor can Amendment No 74 be accepted, since it prevents access for private bodies to action 4. This is also the case where Amendments Nos 71 and 75 are concerned, which seek to eradicate Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses. The entire programme is, in fact, based around these Masters Courses.
In short, the Commission can accept 39 of the 66 initial amendments and 5 of the 12 amendments tabled after the vote in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. In relation to timetables, the target is the academic year 2004-2005, which means that the call for proposals should be published in November this year. The adoption process must not be delayed and I therefore trust that Parliament and the Council will be as swift as possible.
Mr President, we have the opportunity here to do something great, to instigate a programme that will be understood and appreciated by the citizens and which will generate benefits for future generations, in particular with regard to understanding. We are extending a hand today, and I am sure that many others will do the same.
Today, therefore, we are extending Erasmus, this flagship programme of the European Union. We are extending it to the whole world, which is a very good thing because, as your rapporteur quite rightly said, we live in a time when we need to build bridges instead of walls. Erasmus World will indeed build bridges, bridges between Europe and the other continents.
This project is based on absolute respect for the competences of the Member States and the autonomy of higher education institutions. I shall sum up the content of the project in just a few words, Mr President, because your rapporteur has already talked about it. First of all, with regard to EU Masters Courses, we are talking about the fourth and fifth years of university study. These Masters Courses must involve at least three higher education institutions from three different Member States. They must offer a programme that includes a period of study in at least two of these institutions. What is extremely important, and on this point I agree with Mrs De Sarnez and with her fellow Members of Parliament, is that these young people, who are going to study at several universities to do their ‘European tour’, learn not only mathematics or law but also the cultural diversity of Europeans. This is a highly important message that we would like to get into the heads of young Europeans and young people from third countries.
Secondly, for young people from third countries and for university teachers, there is a scholarship system associated with EU Masters Courses. There are also, and this concerns Europeans in particular, partnerships between these EU Masters Courses and higher education institutions in third countries, seeking to encourage the opening up of European education and to strengthen its global presence. These partnerships also offer our European students an opportunity to study abroad. Naturally, we need to increase the attraction of our higher education by means of activities designed to promote our universities. The proposal includes technical support measures, as necessary, and the budget is set at EUR 200 million.
Mr President, if I may, I shall briefly say what the Commission intends to do about the numerous amendments which have been tabled, so that the speakers might make informed speeches. I shall mention, first of all, Amendment No 1 tabled by Parliament. This is the last time I shall say Erasmus World. Parliament has proposed Erasmus Mundus, and Erasmus Mundus it shall be.
You all know very well how important multilingualism is to me. If we create an Erasmus Mundus programme involving a number of universities in several countries, linguistic diversity must clearly be part of Erasmus Mundus, as it is the basis of cultural diversity. I shall, therefore, say yes to Amendment No 4 and to the content of Amendment No 53, or rather, in the long run, Amendments Nos 67, 69 and 77, since they replace it. I presume these will be reworded in order to avoid any prejudice as to the language used for teaching. We also accept the content of Amendment No 29, or rather Amendments Nos 70 and 76 which replace it, and Amendment No 51. In order to maintain the internal coherence of the text, however, they must be combined with Amendment No 53. I cannot accept Amendment No 68 because it seeks to eliminate the promotion of linguistic competence and intercultural understanding, which is completely the opposite direction from that we wish to take.
I shall now come to occupational training. I understand what the Members are saying in wanting to foster occupational training. The Erasmus Mundus programme, however, concerns the field of higher education. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 12, 15 or 45. Amendments Nos 18 and 46 can be partially accepted, since references to training will be deleted.
With regard to brain drain, we have always based our thinking on the principle that Erasmus Mundus would have to attract young people from third countries to Europe and then encourage them to return to their own countries, because it is in their own countries that they will have to build on what they have learnt in Europe. The Commission, in this regard, can accept the spirit of Amendment No 24, which must be reworded. Amendment No 7, on the other hand, cannot be accepted, because the aim here is not development cooperation, and nor can Amendment No 78, since the programme cannot provide students from third countries with support relating to their return to their home country."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples