Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.3.3-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The EPLP delegation voted in favour of the compromise resolution on additionality because we believe that the principle of additionality is one of the core fundamental pillars of the structural funds reforms, for which I was Parliament’s rapporteur. However, I believe that parts of this resolution, rather than bringing clarity to the rules, will only serve to confuse the general public and in particular funding operators. Paragraph A continues to confuse the principle of additionality with the separate but equally important principle of co-financing. Paragraph G is inaccurate. There is no regulatory requirement to check additionality on an annual basis, but as stated in the regulation, simplification requires three checks on additionality during the programming period.
It is inappropriate for Members to try with this resolution to rewrite regulations which were agreed unanimously by this Parliament and will be up for review in 2006. More disappointing is the naked party political games which British Members Mr Davies, Mr Bradbourn and Mrs Evans have attempted in this resolution. This will not serve the best interests of our poorest communities, with deliberate misinformation and hijacking this debate for narrow party political advantage. Our real goal must be to plan and give our support to the successful implementation of these funds to improve the life prospects of people in our poorest regions.
My party is committed to this goal and will work with other parties in a constructive and positive way to achieve this."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples