Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-242"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financing instrument for development and economic cooperation – European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument – Instrument for Stability – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060517.20.3-242"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-17-Speech-3-2432
lpv:speaker	lp:Margrietus van den Berg2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2007-08-31)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (2004-07-20--2007-08-31)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-08-31)3 vice-chair; DEVE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, it was one and a half years ago that the Commission tabled new proposals for the financial foreign policy instruments, including development cooperation, in an attempt at simplification and rationalisation, and that is something of which I am entirely in favour. The way in which the Commission wanted to achieve this, however, would mean that, while Parliament now – thanks to 16 regulations – has codecision powers, it would soon only have an advisory role in the area of development cooperation. What Parliament wants is a say in how policy is fleshed out in terms of topics and geography and in the distribution of funds across the priorities. Also – and that is a different matter in this instrument – the Commission would like to lump together economic cooperation with non-Development Cooperation countries and development cooperation by using a dual legal basis. That is something that remains unacceptable to this House. Although we feel we have now, for lack of new proposals from the Commission, wasted 18 months, all is not lost. The Committee on Development is prepared, on the basis of the Mitchell report, to set up a task force, and we are prepared to get our skates on, on one condition though, namely that the Commission tables its proposals within the next few weeks. Firstly, we want a rationalised instrument, intended for development aid alone, with only Article 179 as its basis, and thus restricted to official development spending. Secondly, we would like to see separate proposals for programmes arranged according to topic and geography. We are prepared to restrict the number of regulations. We want the right of codecision on the broad outlines of policy. Thirdly, we want financial priorities either on the basis of a multi-annual financial framework or by including a very low percentage in the geographical and thematic proposals. What we propose is that 50% of all EU Official Development Assistance spending should be spent on Millennium goals and within this context, present spending levels for basic education and basic health care should be doubled. It is now up to the Commission to decide whether it wants to do business, or remain at loggerheads with us, in which case we will obstruct its simplification and rationalisation initiatives and will revert back to those 16 instruments and all the unworkable micro-management that they entail. I would urge the Council and the Commission, in order that poverty may be reduced in a credible and effective way, to accept our offer. I would thank the Austrian Presidency for the commitment it has shown to date in this respect."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph