Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.20.3-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we have today, as far as the Financial Perspective and the various instruments are concerned, grounds for a certain optimism, and this morning afforded us the opportunity to sign an important document. You have, by a very clear majority, adopted an important compromise, and I believe that Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner’s speech just now gives us reason to take a fundamentally optimistic view of things. I hope, in my capacity as a representative of the Council, to be able to contribute to the generally optimistic mood. Much of what the Commissioner has said reflects the Council’s way of thinking. Here, too, we are singing from the same hymn sheet and hoping that we will succeed in very soon putting the finishing touches to the instruments we are discussing today.
I therefore want to appeal to you all on behalf of the Council not to jeopardise the timely adoption of the instruments. That brings me to the next – and perhaps the most difficult – heading, which is the instrument for development cooperation and economic cooperation, which, it has to be conceded, is our problem child and on which I would like to touch briefly. Here, the Council has shown itself willing to take your House’s main concerns on board, and I hope that this is a matter of common knowledge.
We are certainly willing, then, to divide up DCECI into two instruments, one for development and another for economic cooperation, and I am sure this will meet one of your House’s fundamental concerns; as the Commissioner has already mentioned, the Council also looks with favour on the idea of creating an additional instrument in the field of human rights, something that your House has also called for. In order to fully respect your House’s rights of codecision, the Council has for some considerable time been willing to have in-depth negotiations with your House on all the essential elements of the geographical and thematic programmes and to formulate them together in the same way that was done in respect of the other instruments.
As you can see, the Council is prepared to meet your House more than halfway on the things that matter to you. The only thing I have to say – and I have to spell this out – is that the development cooperation and economic cooperation instrument must not be broken down any further. To reduce it to still more component parts would quite simply make an absurdity of our aim of simplifying the overall structure of the European Union’s overseas aid. To do so would be the very opposite of what we are endeavouring to do under the heading of ‘better regulation’. The Commissioner has already said the same thing, and I – speaking on behalf of the Council – would like to back her up in the strongest terms.
The Council therefore finds it regrettable that, despite the willingness to negotiate and to make a variety of concessions, it has still not yet proved possible to find a solution to the problem of this instrument any more than it has to the other three.
We do not doubt that the European Parliament attaches every bit as much importance as does the Council to this deficit being made good as soon as possible. The poorest countries on this planet of ours would find it beyond their comprehension if they were, so to speak, to be presented with the bill for a controversy between one institution and another. I would therefore hope that we will succeed in finding a solution that would prevent us from ending up in a legal vacuum after 1 January 2007. This is a task that we cannot put off to the crack of doom, and I would like, by way of conclusion, to repeat what Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner has already said, namely that the Council needs this agreement in order to put the final finishing touches to the other three instruments. As we see it, the concessions we have made in respect of the pre-accession instrument, the neighbourhood instrument and the stability instrument, and our willingness to consider a separate human rights instrument, are absolutely conditional on agreement being reached to the development cooperation and economic cooperation instrument. That much is essential, and it is something on which both the Commission and the Council agree completely.
What is needed, then, is a package solution, and, in order to obtain one, we are relying on your House’s goodwill and willingness to compromise. That is something we owe not only to our partners, but also, in the final analysis, to the European public, which expects us to come up with solutions and has no interest in, or sympathy with, interinstitutional squabbles, and would certainly be disappointed if we were unable, from January 2007 onwards, to give overseas aid to the extent that we have all, together, undertaken to do.
Working together over the past few weeks has not been an easy matter, but it has, at the end of the day, proved to be constructive, and has shown just how much, in the final analysis, the institutions’ interests coincide with each other. On behalf of the Council, I would like to express gratitude for this cooperation, which was tough but constructive. It has already enabled us, as early as first reading stage in this House, to achieve agreement on the substance of three of the four instruments – the pre-accession instrument, the neighbourhood instrument, and the stability instrument. Given the complexity of the subject matter, this could certainly not have been taken for granted, and it amounts in itself to a gigantic leap forward.
I would also like to do as the Commissioner has just done and remind your House that the Council has adopted a number of amendments – and not the least significant ones – to every single one of these instruments and not just to those legal acts that are subject to the codecision procedure but also to the pre-accession instrument, which is subject to the consultation procedure. Nor do I wish to gloss over the fact that the package now before you was the cause of a great deal of contention in the Council, and that it took some effort – and a great deal of effort on the part of the President of the Council in COREPER – to get some of the delegations to accept it.
I would now like to say something in brief about each of the instruments in turn. As is well known, each of these instruments has its own history of negotiation behind it, and I would like to begin with the two that are subject to the codecision procedure, those being the Neighbourhood Instrument and the Stability Instrument. We are glad to be able to say that, where the Neighbourhood Instrument is concerned, we have largely achieved agreement, and I would like to thank Mr Szymański for his very constructive cooperation in this respect. I believe that I can say – speaking as the Council’s representative – that we have accommodated virtually all your House’s demands, in that we have made the instrument more flexible, done away with the restriction on the eligible priorities, have imposed further conditions on cooperation, and have made it clear that international conventions, particularly in relation to human rights issues, have to be adhered to. I would remind you of the debate that we had on this subject earlier on. We have also come to a firm agreement on the importance we attach to the role of civil society and our desire to support and promote it.
As for cross-border cooperation, we have not only laid down the partnership principle but have gone further and stressed – as your House demanded – that the regions have to be involved. As you will be aware, the stability instrument – and this is where it is only right that I should thank Mrs Beer – is a particularly sensitive instrument, and it needs to be handled with a great deal of care, for it occupies a grey area between the first and second pillars, and I, speaking as a representative of the Council, will readily concede that this raises serious institutional issues. We have, though, made a good deal of progress, and the Council has endeavoured to meet your House halfway on a number of issues in this respect. We have accommodated Parliament’s desire that it should not merely be consulted but also enjoy the power of codecision. We have managed, albeit as a result of difficult negotiations, to accede to Parliament’s request for a broad scope. The Commission has already made reference to this.
The present constitution specifies what is to be done in the areas of disarmament, improved crisis prevention instruments, crisis management, mediation and measures to take account of the position of women and children in crisis situations. All these things are requirements on which we have insisted, or which we have supported, in the previous debate on the coherence of European human rights policy.
We eventually succeeded, in the 10 May trilogue, in finding solutions that took account of Parliament’s demands for a conditionality clause for measures to combat terrorism by means of statements on the subject from the Commission. I am sure that I can say, on behalf of the Council, that this made it possible for us to come up with a good result. I have to thank Mr Szent-Iványi now that I come to speak to the pre-accession instrument, which is, by its very nature, particularly important. Nor do I need to explain just how important it is for the Austrian Presidency of the Council and its priorities in this very area, quite simply because it is inseparable from the future development of the European Union. The Council therefore saw it as important that it should negotiate with your House in the substance of the act and, in the same way as with the other instruments I have mentioned, to take on board Parliament’s concerns, even though this instrument is not subject to codecision. We have, for example, laid greater emphasis on the gender aspect and on social cohesion and made programmes for potential candidates more widely accessible. We have also agreed to Parliament’s demand that it should be consulted on strategic issues such as the suspension of IPA funds.
Our common objective is that the European Union should be capable of acting in every sphere of foreign policy, and it is regrettable that this – despite some encouraging progress – has not been achieved. What matters now is that we do something of some practical usefulness in moving the process forward as swiftly as possible and adopting the draft acts and regulations in short order. That must now be the common goal of the Council, Parliament and the Commission, and it is one that we must take seriously. I would like to take this opportunity to once more explain in detail why this process needs to be completed, and these draft regulations adopted, as soon as possible.
The existing regulations on the neighbourhood and stability instruments are due to lapse at the end of this year. If we do not ensure that they are replaced, we risk being unable to fund cooperation with the neighbourhood policy countries – which should be a particular matter of concern to all of us – with effect from next year, with it not even being possible to intervene in crisis and disaster situations if these instruments are not wrapped up in good time. A substantial implementing regulation for the pre-accession instrument still needs to be worked out and adopted if the financial resources – in respect of which negotiations were so long drawn-out and laborious – are to be put to work. It is for that reason that your House needs to vote on this by June at the latest. We do not want a financial black hole here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples