Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.4.3-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Díez González and Mr Van Hecke for the enormous amount of work that they have put into their respective reports. I am going to concentrate on the work of Mrs Díez González because it reflects work I myself began in the early 1990's, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There are very few people in the Chamber who were here at that time, but I can still see one or two officials from those days.
At the time, Parliament decided to work closely with the Commission in establishing a programme to promote democracy and human rights, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, but also in those countries close to us and in the wider world, and to put the whole process onto a more systematic basis. That led to the creation of budgetary chapter B7-700, now known as the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. The first thing I would like to say is that the success of this scheme is not widely recognised. Over a period of years, many millions of euros have been spent on projects large and small, near and far, by and large with tremendous success and a very high profile in the countries in which they have been active. This initiative has been a success. There are criticisms, as with any programme, but by and large we should congratulate the Commission on the way in which it handled this matter.
However, in 1999, the whole process was reversed. The process under which the Parliament and the Commission, alongside the G-24, the Council of Europe and one or two other entities, was involved in the monitoring and selection of programmes. The Commission then took on the whole process in-house.
I now come to the heart of the recommendations of Mrs. Díez González' report. Should there be an agency for human rights and democratisation? My answer, and the answer of the PPE-DE group is: not yet. We think that the Commission should still be given the responsibility for maintaining these programmes. Obviously, we need to watch it closely, but to create yet another bureaucracy does not seem appropriate to us at this time.
I personally have no objection to the restoration by Parliament of the Committee on human rights and democratisation. This discussion, however, needs to take place nearer the time of the next election.
In the meantime, we could surely restore the working party on human rights and democratisation within the Foreign Affairs Committee to maintain the oversight that this Parliament should now have on the EUR 100 million being spent annually under the Budget. My proposition is fundamentally this: Parliament, and I am grateful to those colleagues who are still in the Chamber, should re-focus on human rights and democratisation. These are political projects, they need political oversight. We should not leave it all to the Commission, still less to the Council.
So, colleagues, let us take an interest again. I am grateful to Mrs Díez González for focusing attention on this matter. Many of her propositions are well worth pursuing, but not the ones I have singled out as being rather bureaucratic. I am very grateful for the work she has done."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples