Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.7.2-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Committee on Development and Cooperation has focussed its work on the discharge on the single most important point of whether the Commission is achieving its stated aim of using the development assistance budget to combat poverty by shifting significant additional resources to the provision of basic health and education in developing countries. I am sad to report that the figures for 1999 show that this was the first year ever when the least developed countries received under 50% of overseas development aid administered by the Commission. This is a trend we desperately need to reverse. As Mr Blak's resolution states in paragraph 8, point 19 – and I thank him for this – when 880 million people world-wide lack any access to health services, just 1% of the Commission's external assistance budget went to health in 1999 and we do not have any figures at all for education.
Is this a discharge issue? Yes, quite clearly, when the Community Action Plan in response to our parliamentary resolution on the 1998 discharge said: "Since health and education will receive more emphasis, the implication is that a greater amount of financing than in the past would be dedicated to these sectors." It goes on to say, "Adopting OECD standards on reporting should be feasible by 2001." Mrs Schreyer, we insist that the Commission must fulfil these promises. Your so-called reservation against the output targets properly voted by Parliament precisely to increase spending on basic health and education is contrary to the agreed budget. Whatever happens this year, you cannot expect discharge for 2001 unless they are fulfilled. On the essential reporting needed, using the OECD Development Assistance Committee methodology to enable us to achieve this poverty focus, we have more concern over whether this is achieved for Asia and Latin America as against our aid for the ACP countries.
That is why the Committee on Development and Cooperation did not vote to postpone discharge for the European Development Fund. We did not want to send the wrong signal against the strong support we wish to demonstrate for the reform process. But if discharge is postponed, I thank Mrs Rühle for her insistence that the latest figures using the DAC methodology are brought forward by May. This will ensure that the poorest people actually receive the aid. I defy anyone to disagree with that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Howitt (PSE )"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples