Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-235"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.20.3-235"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, there is disquiet within the Committee on Development at the difficulties that have arisen with the European Commission and the Council with regard to the negotiation of the instrument for development cooperation.
We approved the first Mitchell report more than a year ago in the Committee on Development and, since then, it has been at a standstill while we waited for the Commission and the Council to stand by their promise to take account of our arguments and criticisms of the Commission’s initial proposal. Nevertheless, those promises have not been fulfilled, despite some effort and progress, and they have not been reflected in any text presented to Parliament by the Commission.
There were three main problems with what has been proposed to us. Firstly, it did not appear reasonable to have a single instrument for development cooperation and cooperation with the developed world. We were concerned that resources intended for the development of the countries of the South could be transferred to cooperation with the countries of the North. With regard to this point, the Council and the Commission appeared to sympathise with our position.
The second point was more serious. We could not accept the idea of Parliament losing competences that it had had with regard to the seventeen instruments which were now intended to be compacted into one or two. The entire process of European integration has been characterised by a constant effort to consolidate the democratic progress made within the interinstitutional relationship, which has essentially taken the form of greater competences for Parliament in decision-making.
We are surprised, and somewhat indignant, at the approach advocated by the Commission, which sets efficiency against democracy. The intention has been to reduce Parliament’s competences, on the grounds that they complicate the process and make it less efficient. It is not the hierarchy of the Committee on Development that is at stake, but rather the competence of Parliament, and in that regard we cannot take a single step backwards. In this respect, there has not been the least progress that can be objectively measured.
The third area of conflict relates to the fact that, perhaps more on the part of the Council than of the Commission, the intention has been to include actions relating to security, terrorism and immigration within development cooperation. Some of them may appear appropriate; what is unacceptable is that they should be funded with resources earmarked for development cooperation.
For example, funding the repatriation of illegal immigrants from the instrument for development cooperation is not acceptable to us. These programmes require a differentiated instrument funded from other sources. In this area as well, there has been some progress in our debate with the Commission and the Council.
Mr President, we are going to vote for the text proposed to us, in the hope that, at second reading, the Commission will understand and accept our arguments, hopefully with the understanding and support of the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples