Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.8.3-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I have taken part earlier in the day in two debates on the Middle East and the Mediterranean and now we move on to slightly easier terrain, perhaps, but a very important subject indeed.
Amendment No 14 of the Budget Committee would be a derogation from the 1999 comitology decision and therefore is not acceptable either. At any rate, on that amendment, I do not believe that it is the number of participants in committee meetings that should really matter to us or to Parliament, it is how many of them are reimbursed by Community funds. This is a horizontal issue which should find a general solution instead of being addressed in every regulation and I hope we can proceed on that basis.
Again, I would like to thank the rapporteur very warmly for her constructive and intelligent help in developing our relationship with some of our closest friends around the world. We are, in this particular instance, correcting an anomaly and filling an important gap as Mr Jarzembowski pointed out a few moments ago. So I thank Parliament for their understanding and I trust that it will not take too violent exception to the fact that there are three of the 14 amendments which I would advise against.
Let me begin first by thanking Parliament for the support that it has given to this Commission proposal, firstly by allocating a budget for the implementation of this regulation in line with the Commission’s request for 2001 of EUR 15.6 million. We are extremely grateful to Parliament for that.
Secondly, I would like to thank Parliament for adopting unanimously, as I hope it will, the favourable report from the rapporteur, Ms Mann. I take this is as a strong token of Parliament’s broad endorsement of the Commission’s proposal regarding the industrialised countries. At this stage may I express our warm gratitude to Ms Mann, and indeed to her colleague Ms Read, for their consistent, constructive support for the development of our transatlantic relationship. Since I am visiting the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia during the course of the next three months, I am very pleased that we have made this progress this evening.
Our relations with the industrialised countries have significantly deepened, and indeed broadened, in recent years. We are moving away from a narrow focus on trade to comprehensive relationships encompassing everything from the Common Foreign and Security Policy, justice and home affairs, education and culture, environmental issues, science and research and, which I regard as particularly important, people-to-people exchanges.
In the case of the United States and Canada, these comprehensive relationships are already a reality, while other partners like Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Australia are keen to develop similar relationships. The cornerstones of these relationships are the common values and the similar interests that we share.
So while we see on the one hand an increasing demand for closer cooperation with some of our most important partners, on the other, we have lacked the legal framework to be able to follow things up. Indeed, we currently only have legal bases for actions with Canada and Japan. The latter is limited to market access activities and it expires at the end of this year. For the United States, we do not have a legal basis at all, compelling us to implement projects under the new transatlantic agenda as pilot projects or preparatory actions which do not require a legal base but which are limited in time to either two or three years.
The Commission proposal under discussion aims to resolve this situation by establishing a solid and common legal base which can underpin our relations with the industrialised countries. A common legal base is appropriate since our relations with all these countries are based on common values and shared interests. It is also appropriate because it would enable the Commission to develop similar programmes to the extent possible with all or some of these countries. In addition, if linked to a single budget line as we have proposed, we would have clear administrative advantages. We would greatly improve efficiency by aiming for economies of scale and create optimal flexibility. Improved budget transparency both for Parliament, and I must say for the Council, would also be achieved.
Finally, a common legal base linked to a single budget line is in line with the Commission’s policy of limiting the number of small legal bases and budget lines. I would like to emphasise the importance the Commission attaches to this proposal. The benefits of a common, legal and budgetary framework to support our relationships with the industrialised countries are clear. I am confident that our first report to Parliament on the results of the implementation of this regulation which we present in a couple of years’ time will prove that to Parliament’s satisfaction.
Let me turn to the 14 amendments adopted by Parliament. I am delighted to say that the Commission can accept 11 of them. Ms Mann and Mr Ferrer, referred in particular to Amendment No 5. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 refer to the division of responsibility between the Community and Member States on market access and export promotion. Ms Read pointed out that the Member States are very sensitive to this issue. Accepting these two amendments would result in a substantial shift away from Member States, well beyond what we agreed for the Japan market access regulation a few years ago. Although I am not afraid of having occasional disagreements with the Council, I would advise against the adoption of these two amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples