Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-12-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061212.8.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, before turning to my own report, let me congratulate Mr Mitchell on his. As the House will know, these two instruments started life as a single instrument and the Committee on Development was correct to argue that they needed to be separated because we were mixing apples and pears. The development instrument essentially aims to promote the interests of developing countries. The economic instrument, the one I am responsible for, is about promoting – not exclusively, but mainly – the interests of the European Union. It was therefore wrong that these two objectives should have been contained in a single instrument. The Committee on Development was correct to argue for a separate instrument and it was also correct to argue that it should be pushing hard for the European Parliament’s involvement to at least be the same as it is under the plethora of existing instruments. So, I congratulate Mr Mitchell on his report.
Turning to my own report, it is small in importance compared with the other external instruments, but still a significant tool of this European Union. It expands on the existing programmes, firstly in terms of geographical areas: the existing programmes cover just six countries, this new instrument will cover 17 countries. It is expanded in terms of objectives and, as one would hope with both the objectives and the geographical area being expanded, it is also expanded in terms of its budget. So, while it is the smallest of the external instruments, it is still a significant instrument.
It focuses on furthering EU interests in industrialised countries and it builds on the highly successful executive training programme for Japan and Korea and the Gateway to Japan programme. Both have been subject to a Commission-financed study, which demonstrates that they have increased the access of European companies in both Japan and Korea and increased the awareness of the European Community in those two countries and so are worthwhile in themselves.
The new programme will have five key objectives: to build on public diplomacy and outreach; the promotion of economic partnership and business; people-to-people links, particularly through education; encouraging dialogues; and finally the evaluation of small-scale cooperation projects to assist small and medium-sized enterprises to get access to third country markets. These are all very worthwhile objectives.
In terms of the Committee on International Trade’s approach, we have concentrated on three things. First, given that the scope of the programmes has expanded from 6 to 17 countries, we have insisted that there is room for differentiation within the programme – a one-size-fits-all approach would simply not work in a programme like this. I am glad to say that the Commission has gone along with the idea that the programme should be country-specific, rather than a general programme for 17 countries.
We have also tabled amendments to ensure that this programme is complementary to the other instruments that we will be adopting either today or at a later stage.
Again, given that the programme has expanded, we have insisted that there should be human rights and rule of law clauses in these instruments. Again both the Council and the Commission have indicated a willingness to accept those amendments.
I am also pleased to say that, despite this being only a consultation and not a codecision matter, unlike Mr Mitchell’s report, the Council has agreed to attach the two interinstitutional agreements on budgetary discipline and democratic scrutiny. It has also agreed that Parliament should be more involved in this programme than originally envisaged and has accepted that, if the scope of the programme is altered, either geographically or in terms of its objectives, Parliament will be fully consulted. The Commission has also agreed to bring forward multiannual planning for consultation with Parliament on this. So the level of parliamentary involvement has been significantly increased.
Finally, let me conclude by saying that there is a chance that, if we adopt all the amendments today, this instrument will be adopted by the Council in exactly the form that it leaves Parliament. That is quite an achievement, given that it is only a consultation exercise. I would like to thank the Commission for its excellent cooperation, and particularly the Finnish Presidency, which, on a relatively minor instrument compared to the other instruments, has been fully engaged in Parliament’s work, has kept us fully abreast of its position and has made compromises. We have made compromises with the Presidency. I think in the end we have got a very workable instrument and I would like to thank all the institutions for their cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples