Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000515.6.1-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Commission is appreciative of the rapporteur's excellent work and welcomes the recommendation on the Council common position which reflects Parliament's commitment to assist the new South Africa. We too are worried about the delays in the adoption of the regulation and share the view that quick adoption of the regulation on the European programme for reconstruction and development is now becoming essential and critical. It would be a signal to South Africa of our dedication to the effective entry into force of the agreement on trade development and cooperation and would prevent new tensions arising around issues still to be discussed concerning wines and spirits or fisheries.
If, however, the Community is unable to adopt the regulation in time, our development programme for this year will be jeopardised and confidence undermined.
We also totally share the rapporteur's view that the Council common position contains useful improvements to the Commission's proposal. However, on commitology and the financial framework, we also consider that the common position is inadequate and cannot be followed.
Indeed, as regards Amendment No 1, on Article 8(5) and (6) on commitology, your proposal for a EUR 5m threshold is, to be frank, somewhat disappointing compared to the level of EUR 25m we had proposed. We proposed such a level in order to use the committed resources in a more efficient and useful way and to deal with strategic issues rather than the details of individual projects. But in the South Africa case, we are ready to accept the EUR 5m threshold simply in order not to delay a decision. It appears from our programming discussions with the South African Government that we will have a limited number of major sectoral programmes which we think have to be discussed in any case with the Member States. The EUR 5m level gives us enough room to proceed quickly with some small projects, for instance preparatory actions or pilot operations. But we definitely need to make clear that no precedent should be created for the Council to impose low commitology thresholds. I should like to retain the possibility of increasing this threshold for the South Africa budget line in the future, if need be.
Regarding Amendment No 2, Article 10(1) on the financial framework: the Commission has been aware on the one hand of the need to respect the political commitment in the trade and development cooperation agreement to maintain assistance to South Africa but, on the other hand, we have to take into account the very difficult budgetary situation caused by the new commitments made for assistance in the Balkans. As a result, the Commission has agreed on the necessary budget adjustments to accommodate new needs. This exercise has been very complex: it has required a very sensitive balancing of the political priorities across the EU's regional programmes. But we envisage stabilisation for South Africa at the average level of around EUR 122m per annum, with a global figure of some EUR 850.5m in the period 2000-2006. This is below your proposal of EUR 885.5m but it is significantly higher than the EUR 787.5m the Council proposed. The South African programme is in fact one of the least affected by the proposed changes within heading IV and the adjustment will not affect the nature and scope of the programme as envisaged.
I understand your determination not to reduce the financial amounts for development aid to South Africa. However, I find it absolutely necessary that the regulation is adopted in time to ensure uninterrupted implementation of activities in South Africa. This situation is indeed very critical and not a normal, routine situation – but unfortunately it is what we are facing – and I feel an obligation to do my utmost to secure agreement between the Council, Parliament and the Commission on the proposed approach.
I am therefore anxious both to discuss the matter again with the Committee on Development and Cooperation in Parliament and before that to seek a response from the Member States.
Bearing that in mind, I should welcome it if Parliament would consider whether the vote on Amendment No 2 could be postponed so that these discussions can take place. This is the safest way to reduce the risk of a much more serious and longer delay threatening the credibility of our cooperation with South Africa."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples