Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.11.4-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I wish to begin by saying that I totally support Mrs Sudre's remarks. The Commission is always asked to ensure that there is coherence in what we do and we have a strong case of lack of coherence when we look at the trade practices that are at the heart of this debate. We have had good reason to do what we have done and I definitely hope that some constructive conclusion that ends this traffic will be part of the final solution for the whole matter.
The Commission is looking into absorption problems but I have the impression that more efforts should be made by the OCTs themselves to use funds efficiently
I regret – but I have to tell you – that certain Member States do not seem to share these priorities. Again this is a matter for the Community. We have to get out of the self-service syndrome. The reduction in Regional Funds is justified by the limited use made of them in the past. Should this situation change, I would be very pleased to reconsider this point.
The Commission also wants to send a strong message to those OCTs defined as tax havens in the OECD analysis. Unless and until they redress their practices, their allocations will and should be cut back. Again let me remind Parliament of the strong emphasis placed on the need for coherence. Parliament's views on this matter have been made very clear to us. We happen to agree with them but we cannot say one thing in one document and then not apply it in an area like this.
I share the view that different ways of financing OCT aid than the EDF could be considered. However, in practice this would only be possible when new budget guidelines are agreed in a few years' time. For the same reason, given the existing budgetary rules, the EDF is currently the only real possibility for financing partnership meetings and evaluation studies. But let me repeat that opening access to active involvement in Community programmes is an interesting additional way for the OCTs to benefit from our relationship.
Let me turn to trade. For too many years now this has been a bone of contention between some OCTs and the Community. Unfortunately, excessive expectations in this field have been generated despite our advice. When the Community has been forced to take corrective measures those expectations have inevitably been disappointed. But part of the problem and the cases that have dominated this discussion were also the product of deliberate engineering of ways in which to use or misuse the existing system. We should not fool ourselves on this issue.
So let me be very clear here. The Commission has always supported a liberal trade attitude toward our preferential partners, in particular developing countries. The recent initiative on “Everything But Arms” is just one latest example. The OCTs will continue to enjoy the most favourable trade arrangement granted by the Community. This is the current position and so it will remain. However, a line has to be drawn between supporting economic activities and tolerating purely speculative operations which have no development effects and, in addition, cost huge sums to the Community, be it the Community budget, consumers or productive sectors.
In other cases, real abuses have been identified and stopped by our anti-fraud departments. It is only reasonable that when preparing new legislation we seek to eliminate the risk of this happening again. Once more, such misuse has not served in any way the best interests of OCT citizens and governments.
Let me stress that the OCT association certainly includes the principle of preferential access to our market, but not an unconditional one. This is not only the view of the Commission, as the Council and the Court of Justice have consistently endorsed it. Coherence with the other Treaty policies and with the rule of the law must also be maintained. It is in the urgent interest of the OCTs that a favourable business climate is re-established as soon as possible. This has to be our main objective when formulating our proposals on trade.
Finally, let me express the hope that very soon we can reach the end of this long phase of transition and uncertainty concerning the future regime. The Commission will, to this end, be available as a catalyst where needed to achieve a rapid conclusion in the Council to end the long saga of this renewal of the OCT regime. I definitely hope that Parliament is giving a helping hand by this work of the rapporteur.
Let me also congratulate the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the rapporteur for a clear and generally balanced analysis of this whole matter, although I need to make some remarks.
The Commission proposal is based on the widest consultation of the parties concerned ever made in this field. Thus, it is not surprising that some of the indications we have received as part of this wide consultation process point in different, even conflicting, directions. Inevitably, some delicate compromises have had to be struck, for example in the trade sector. However, we have kept to the objective of giving an adequate and ambitious response to the expectations of the OCTs and to the challenges facing them.
The motion before you today gives a positive assessment of several innovations we have proposed, such as the reinforced partnership procedure, the simplified financial regulations and the new role of civil society. In my view, other points also deserve to be mentioned, for example the extension of many budget lines, Community programmes and provisions on trade in services to the OCTs. There is a tendency to neglect the importance, the scope and the opportunities for the OCTs to be able to access as users Community programmes in general. This is new and should be highlighted.
I have remarks to make concerning two chapters of the proposal – financial aid and trade.
As to the European Development Fund, it is correct that, in respect of the past, financial aid will no longer be given to three OCTs – Aruba, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands
because their GNP is now near or even higher than in the Community. It is important that all Members of Parliament are made aware of this. We have to get out of the habit of having OCT issues being discussed only in the few Member States that have a direct part in the discussion. In the past, it has looked a little too much like a self-service shop. We are talking about Community matters and they should be discussed at that level.
For all the other OCTs, in the future funds will be granted following more
objective, transparent and coherent criteria.
Income, GNP, has to be one of them, along with population, as we want to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent where it is most needed, and this means in the fight against poverty. This is the cornerstone of the EU development policy, and I want to stick to this – also in respect of the clear support for this development policy in this House. Transitional provisions have been proposed. Substantial funds are reserved for social and environmental projects in medium income OCTs.
Secondly, money has to go where it is best used. This is why we have proposed to keep a reserve not only to cover emergency aid and the kinds of activities that cannot be programmed in advance, but also to grant additional transfers to those territories which use their initial amounts more efficiently. A real part of the story is that quite an impressive amount of money has not been well utilised. So this performance criterion is a necessary component and the reason we want to keep a reserve to solve this problem."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples