Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.10.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for the sound work that they have done. Although they are not present right now, they will be able to read this in the Minutes.
As a Liberal, I am pleased about the fact that the Commission has tabled the proposal to provide a legal framework for support in the fields of culture, education, training and youth. The procedures followed to date have not always been a guarantee for transparency and quality, and these are, after all, two requirements if Europe wants to become the world's most dynamic and competitive knowledge economy. It is important for the Commission to keep this in mind when it makes the different calls for proposals to be submitted. We need clear criteria for the awarding of subsidies to organisations and projects, and these must be clearly publicised, so that the applicants know where they stand. The selection of organisations and projects must be done very carefully and must not be left to the Commission itself. This is why I have started to argue in favour of involving independent experts. In the Netherlands, we have a Council for culture. This is an advisory council that issues well-founded advice to the minister, who acts upon this advice, unless there are very good reasons not to.
I can imagine that this could also be set up for the selection of organisations that are culturally active at European level. This is a far purer procedure than the way we are operating at the moment. However, the question now at issue is whether or not to earmark. Traditionally, my group has not been in favour of earmarking, but the selected organisations should be able to rely on a certain degree of continuity. I have also spoken in favour of this within my group. To my mind, the option of concluding multi-annual framework partner agreements is a good way of getting round this, but we must beware of these subsidies being maintained until the end of time. Consequently, my group argues in favour of introducing the degressivity principle, which should kick-in in the third year. According to my calculations, with an annual degressivity of 2.5%, as proposed by the Commission, the organisations can be supported for another forty years or so. That, though, is quite a commitment for us, and even for our grandchildren. This is why we, the Liberals, propose 10%. In that way, the organisations can rely on thirteen years of support from us. The possibility is thus created also to support new organisations, which, in the light of enlargement, should definitely not be overlooked. Continuity, combined with room for innovation, that is my motto.
Unfortunately, we are facing a problem next year, in that the action programmes are expected to go ahead on 1 January 2004, which is only a few weeks away, and nothing has yet been organised. The organisations that have hitherto received subsidies run the risk of being left in the cold in 2004. The Liberals want to prevent this from happening, and that is why a transitional arrangement should be put in place.
As a final point, I should like to indicate briefly that not only must the allocation procedures be transparent, but that matters should also be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. I have mentioned this before and I should like to repeat it here: this is important and it applies to all three action programmes."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples