Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.14.3-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank the Council for being here for this very important debate in relation to the European Development Fund. As the Council is aware, because of the ongoing debate on the budgetisation of the EDF, no provisions relating to the financial framework were included in the revised Cotonou agreement. However, in Annex 1 it states very clearly that ‘the European Union will maintain its aid efforts at at least the same level as that of the ninth EDF’.
Our next debate will be on economic partnership agreements and one of the most contentious issues for us, and which we will raise, will be the financing of aid for trade in the economic partnership agreements. Will you clarify, President-in-Office, whether you will be offering additional funds for the EPA negotiations, or whether you expect such funding to come from the ACP’s tenth EDF?
Finally, if the African Union is to be included, how will allowances be made for the fact that many members of the African Union are not ACP countries? Do you expect those countries to benefit from EDF money if the Council decides that you will support the African Union from the tenth EDF?
We are talking about a binding agreement with the ACP, and I trust that the Council will reflect that in the decisions it takes on the tenth EDF.
Therefore, in my view, President-in-Office, the ACP countries were misled into believing that they should feel secure about future funding under the tenth EDF. The Commission’s assessment was that for the tenth EDF, EUR 24.948 billion was the appropriate sum. In December, however, the Council in Brussels agreed on EUR 22.682 billion on current prices for the 2008-2013 period.
President-in-Office, I give this history because I think it is relevant to the position adopted by Parliament’s Committee on Development, which is that the Development Committee requires reassurance and clarification before we agree to give our assent to the amended Cotonou agreement.
Past agreements should dictate that both the Council and the Commission should understand that when the Development Committee takes a strong stance, as we have done on the DCCI, we in that committee will maintain a very strong position on our principles. Our principles centre around development, and if they are not addressed, then the Council should understand that we will not give our assent until that is clearly part of the way in which you are operating.
One of our concerns relates to the fact that certain members of the Council say that we should accept that we deduct EUR 0.3 billion for the EU’s 21 overseas countries and territories and that a further EUR 0.9 billion should be deducted to cover administrative costs. Yesterday in committee, the Director-General of DG Development made it very clear that the position that you may have on the OCTs was not shared by the Commission. Will the Council therefore clarify what its position on the OCTs is? As a British Member of this Parliament, I am very well aware of the position of the UK, the last Council Presidency. However, President-in-Office, I would like to know what your position is.
Also, on administrative costs, how can it be sensible for the Commission to pay itself for the administration of its own resources? This cannot make sense and I am sure is not something that you are familiar with in your own administration. Would the Member States – the Council – be prepared to consider giving additional money to cover the costs of the OCTs? These are not unimportant caveats. I am not introducing them in a casual way, because I really want to know exactly from you how it can be the case that you make these decisions which say that you do not want to give us the assurances that the money that you are giving to the ACP for the ACP’s use are funds for those countries to use in a clear and transparent way.
I would also take issue with the assertion that the tenth EDF represents a significant improvement on the ninth EDF. In real terms I would argue that it is nothing more than a stagnation. The Development Committee cannot and will not be duped by what we see as double-speak on this issue.
The ninth EDF included funds left over from the previous EDF: ‘unspent money’. Once this money is added to the ninth EDF, the figures touted by the Council are comparable only in nominal terms. When things are finalised, the tenth EDF will have to be ratified and that presents us with enormous concerns when you consider that 25 Member States will have to be part of this ratification process.
The results of an under-spend in the past have been that we have gone in for all these facilities – water facilities, peace facilities – which have had very limited democratic control. Surely this is a matter of concern for you, President-in-Office?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples