Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.20.3-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I greatly appreciate that Parliament has decided to discuss together the package of instruments for the delivery of external assistance for the future period spanning 2007 to 2013.
I should now like to say a few words on each of the instruments that are before this House today.
The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance – the IPA – has been welcomed by Parliament for its policy-driven approach. There has been a fruitful dialogue on the proposed regulation with Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Szent-Iványi. Indeed, a compromise text for IPA, addressing a number of issues of concern to Parliament, was agreed by COREPER on 3 May. The Commission fully supports this compromise, which reflects to a large extent the amendments proposed by Mr Szent-Iványi in his report. I am pleased to make a formal declaration today, which I hope will also solve the major outstanding issue of Parliament’s involvement in the suspension of assistance:
‘The Commission will take due account of any request made by the European Parliament to the Commission to submit a proposal to suspend or restore Community assistance, and will provide a prompt and sufficiently detailed reply thereto’.
For the Stability Instrument, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Beer, for the central and positive role she has played in the negotiations to date, which have touched on sensitive institutional issues. The report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs has had a very positive impact on the political compromise reached in COREPER, for which I thank you. That compromise is very finely balanced. I believe it will form the basis of a deal between the institutions.
Reflecting concerns of Parliament, we have also agreed more policy content under the Stability Instrument. There are strengthened references to respect for human rights in relation to the fight against terrorism. The Commission is ready to make a political declaration further underlining this and confirming its commitment to informing Parliament of exceptional assistance measures as they are adopted. I shall be writing to you shortly setting out some ideas on the establishment of a Peace-Building Partnership to improve practical implementation of civilian peace-building projects.
For the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, we have worked intensively with Mr Szymánski, Parliament’s rapporteur, and the Presidency. As a result, we now have a text which addresses the concerns of Parliament. An agreement on this text was reached in COREPER last week and we are very hopeful that, on this basis, an agreement is now within reach.
For the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument, work is not as advanced as for the other instruments. I am convinced that the main building blocks of a compromise are, however, within reach. Thanks to the cogent arguments of the rapporteur, Mr Mitchell, it is agreed that the new legislative set-up must preserve Parliament’s codecision rights. It is now a question of the best way to do it. The Commission is calling for pragmatism, given our shared objective of achieving genuine simplification of external assistance.
In more concrete terms, let me come to the main amendments proposed in Mr Mitchell’s report. Given their total number, I will concentrate on those that relate to the architecture of the instrument.
First of all, a series of amendments – Amendments 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 65, 66 and 67 – propose to establish separate policy-setting regulations and a multiannual financial framework to be adopted by codecision in addition to the DCECI. This alternative to the incorporation of policy content and financial provisions into the regulation goes against the objective of simplification. The Commission is more than willing to expand the geographic and thematic policy content of the DCECI to preserve Parliament’s rights. We have said so on several occasions. However, we consider that the best way to achieve this is to follow the Council Presidency’s proposal and to do it in a single regulation.
Secondly, three amendments – Amendments 4, 23 and 114 – reflect one of the general points made by Parliament which I referred to earlier: the continuation of an instrument in favour of human rights and democracy.
It is over a year and a half since the Commission tabled its proposals. I wish to acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Parliament and successive Council Presidencies to find imaginative and constructive solutions to the challenges that we have encountered on these innovative proposals. The new simplified architecture was the first attempt to streamline all the instruments for external spending. The simplification proposed was welcomed by both Parliament and the Council. And soon after Parliament began its work, a certain number of important questions were raised. These matters were set out in a letter in April last year from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Brok, and the rapporteur for the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument, Mr Mitchell. There were six issues in total and on these I believe Parliament has obtained full satisfaction.
Thirdly, five amendments – Amendments 1, 5, 6, 23 and 115 – build on the initial request to establish a clear distinction between cooperation with industrialised countries and cooperation with developing countries. They actually go further and propose the splitting of cooperation with industrialised countries from the DCECI. The Commission understands the underlying concern behind these amendments. The Commission could consider, for instance – if this is a condition for a final compromise on a clear and logical structure – the splitting of cooperation with industrialised countries into a separate instrument.
Fourthly, three amendments – Amendments 2, 25 and 26 – call for a change in the legal basis, that is, a single legal basis, Article 179, without Article 181a of the Treaty. I know legal advice differs on this. For the Commission, the issue is one of legal security. The Commission also understands Parliament’s argument that a wide understanding of development cooperation should offer the necessary comfort. I would be ready to re-consider our position if a wide definition of development cooperation based on Article 179 is ensured.
Fifth, one amendment – Amendment 51 on sectoral spending targets – is of particular concern. This is the establishment of sectoral spending targets. This would run contrary to the principles of partnership and ownership with beneficiary countries and it would introduce rigidity in programme implementation.
There are also a number of other amendments that would need to be discussed in more depth. A document has been submitted to Parliament setting out the Commission’s position on each of the amendments. I do not want to give the impression that our positions are far apart on all these issues. Out of 117 amendments, the Commission can accept 26 in full and 40 in part or in principle. This means that half of the amendments are totally uncontroversial.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on nuclear safety. This has been an important part of our past work and will remain so. Originally included within the Stability Instrument, the change in the legal basis made it necessary to create a separate Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation. I understand that the draft text has now been sent by the Council to Parliament to allow you to begin preparing your opinion.
I should like to finish by saying a few words on the way forward. There are grounds for optimism that agreement could be found on the text of two of the codecided instruments: the Stability Instrument and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Similarly, I hope that the declaration I made concerning the Pre-Accession Instrument is sufficient to allow Parliament to give its opinion.
What now of the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument? This is a key element in the architecture. This instrument covers assistance to Asia, Latin America and South Africa, as well as key thematic programmes. It is central to the package and too important to be left behind. I am convinced that we can do what needs to be done to ensure that the complete legislative framework is in place before the end of the year.
The Presidency has already done considerable work on the policy content of the DCECI. There will be a window of opportunity following Parliament’s first reading to reach a consensus on the key issues of substance before the adoption of the Council’s common position. This could cover some limited changes in the architecture, which would not undermine the principle of simplification and the essential policy provisions. The consensus reached would be reflected in the Council’s common position, which the Council Presidency hopes to adopt in June. This would greatly facilitate a timely agreement on second reading.
Finally, the provision of effective assistance to our partners from 1 June 2007 onwards is a shared responsibility. With the agreement on the financial perspective and the advances made on this legislative package, I am convinced we are within striking distance of achieving that goal.
Your first concern was to ensure that the instruments were adopted under codecision whenever the Treaty made that possible. In response, the Council and the Commission agreed that the Stability Instrument should pass from consultation of Parliament to codecision. Three of the four instruments are codecided. This gives Parliament a fully legitimate but unprecedented degree of legislative power over the framework covering external spending.
Parliament also wished to ensure that the instruments would be subject to a mid-term review and to expiry dates. These points were accepted. We have also agreed that before undertaking the review, Parliament should examine the operation of this instrument to identify any dysfunctional situations that may have arisen, and Parliament’s report would be considered by the Commission in carrying out the review of the instrument. Should the review identify problems that require an adaptation of the relevant instruments and regulations, the Commission will submit the necessary legislative proposals. That review should be carried out in 2009, as requested by Parliament.
Parliament also wanted separate financial envelopes for different geographic regions and thematic sectors. The Commission has provided a breakdown of the envelopes for the codecided instruments and agrees to the inclusion of a breakdown in the regulations.
One of the most challenging points has been the involvement of Parliament in priority-setting and strategy documents. So far as priority-setting is concerned, the necessary policy elements will be included in the draft regulations. This has been done both for the Stability Instrument and for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Unfortunately, the progress achieved on these instruments has not yet been mirrored in the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument.
Parliament’s future involvement in strategy documents is now covered by two declarations annexed to the Interinstitutional Agreement. I have written to Mr Brok on how these could be put into practice. We envisage a mechanism for a dialogue with Parliament, which should allow us then to present the selected strategy documents, explain our choices and receive Parliament’s view on the choices and how the strategy should be implemented.
Finally, for the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument, Parliament wished to have a clear distinction between policy towards developing countries and towards industrialised countries. We have no difficulty in accepting that.
There has been a strong demand from Parliament for a separate instrument to support democracy and human rights. In January 2006, the Commission set out its vision for the thematic programme on democracy and human rights. I recognise that Parliament is not convinced on this. I have listened to Parliament and I understand its reasons. I am committed, therefore, to resolving this point to the satisfaction of Parliament as part of an overall agreement on the instruments. This is a clear commitment on behalf of the Commission to a separate human rights instrument. This position is shared by the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples