Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-11-Speech-3-437"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070711.35.3-437"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, that was the previous speaker’s last speech, and this is my first in plenary. I trust you will treat me well.
I must begin by pointing out that the process of adopting the Regulation establishing the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) has, as we know, been torturous, complex and at times beset by a number of difficulties. Indeed, the first answer given by Parliament aimed at rejecting the proposal itself was at the time adopted unanimously by the Committee on Development, and similarly supported unanimously by the other three committees that issued opinions on the matter. All of which led the Commission and the Council to the negotiating table and ultimately convinced both institutions to respect Parliament’s recourse to codecision. We know all of this already.
As we all know, the proposal was ultimately adopted, although many of the same factors that gave cause for concern more than a year ago have not gone away.
In the intervening year, Parliament has tabled three resolutions warning the Commission that it was exceeding its powers and asking it to rectify the situation, which it has singularly failed to do. The Commission should also be reminded what may happen if it overdoes comitology with this Chamber.
Parliament is moving ahead without looking at matters carefully, and I feel that the very fact that this resolution has been adopted unanimously in the Committee on Development is highly significant.
For example, the DCI regulation states that ‘the Community will promote a development process that is partner country led and owned’. We should like to know, however, if there was contact with the parliaments of these partner countries prior to the adoption of strategy documents and if so whether there are details of these meetings available.
The DCI regulation also promotes inclusive and participatory approaches and a broad involvement of all segments of society in the development process and in national dialogue, yet we do not have any information on whether or not this series of contacts has actually taken place.
We also feel that there is little or no information on the extent to which the DCI financed these strategy papers. We should like to know if these strategy papers have benefited from other sources of funding, and if so how much of them will be funded by those sources. In short, are there any programmes within the strategy papers that do not have a Millennium Development Goals profile, as laid down in the DCI regulation? If so, how much money have these programmes been granted?
Our group continues to have these and many other doubts. Perhaps these doubts will be cleared up in these communications, which you have just announced, from the Committee on Development. We have not forgotten, however, that the DCI regulation mentions transparency as the key to the implementation of the programmes as many as seven times. We feel that we must lead by example and that the Commission should ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed in order to dispel the concerns engendered by the manner in which this instrument has been managed over the past six months."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples