Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-06-Speech-4-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031106.6.4-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
British Labour MEPs had to vote against the amended report due to serious concerns about duplicating and complicating legislation, a reduction in resources for Asia, and benchmarking. The Parliament has an agreed position in favour of simpler rules and procedures, and it makes no sense for a technical, legal regulation to do the work of Country Strategy Papers and National Indicative Programmes. Creating two separate regulations will undermine the objective to streamline and clarify development policy programmes and, as the world's poorest region, transferring funds from Asia to Latin America cannot be justified.
We could not support Amendments 1 and 2 to split the Regulation; 93 and 94 to reduce funding for Asia and increase funding for Latin America; 3, 18, 56 and 97 on benchmarks and a Bi-Regional Solidarity Fund for Latin America (creating a cumbersome and wasteful extra layer of bureaucracy); or 18, 28, 29, 56, 57, 95, 96, and 99 which create a rigid framework for programmes intended for poverty reduction. It remains to be seen what the implication of today's vote will be in the Commission and Council. The result could be that we have not served the interests of either Asia or Latin America."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples