Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.10.2-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Let me first address the issue mentioned by Mr Howitt, of the amounts targeted towards health and education. Most Members of Parliament will recognise that, since we have discussed this again and again, it is not easy to say anything new. That is also the reason why Mr Howitt has not missed anything, even though I did not have the opportunity to reply to his last letter in time. That does not, of course, prevent us from continuing to discuss the matter amicably.
The agreement last year on a 35% benchmark on health and education is an input indicator for our commitments to social infrastructure. The Commission will provide the breakdown of figures against the various DAC codes from the OECD showing commitments in 2002 and 2003 for health and education. The level of commitments will depend mainly on the results of the programming exercise in our partner countries. There is no need to re-open the agreement of last year, and there is nothing to be gained by it in terms of additional information.
The systems of tracing and categorising more clearly what we do is under implementation – according to what we have promised Parliament – and that will create a basis for a more enlightened discussion on these issues.
On the funding of the Global Health Fund, as my colleague Mrs Schreyer has already said, the Commission will ensure that it will do what is expected. This is all we really need to say at this point.
I agree very much with Mr Laschet that the increase in TACIS is important, inter alia for reasons of stepping up our presence in general in that region.
On what was said about involving Parliament more closely when making political promises, I understood that to mean that Parliament should be involved more before making political promises, otherwise I do not see why we need to discuss it. This is certainly a good and correct way of working and, in general, I feel this is the way things are being done.
Remarks were made about staffing and security in delegations. We welcome the amendment by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy underlining the difficult security situation of many of our delegations. However, the Development Committee amendment relating to the recruitment of specialists – the other point raised by Mr Howitt – puts very rigid and complicated conditions on the release of EUR 10 million of these funds. It would seriously undermine the deconcentration process, since we need to know the funds available in order to recruit and train staff. It will also unnecessarily penalise some of the poorest beneficiaries, since the main impact will fall on delegations in 30 ACP countries.
What we do, and what we prefer to do, is to strengthen the handling of the different sectors by means of networks of specialists both in headquarters and out in delegations. However, a very rigid system, as proposed by the Development Committee's amendment, will not help us in getting things done in an efficient manner, so we do not welcome that proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples