Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-03-Speech-4-045-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110203.4.4-045-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I understand I have some injury time for not being able to get in at the beginning of the debate. My apologies – I got held up in traffic.
Let me be clear that we are not talking about micro-management, as a colleague has already said, or individual programmes and projects. The amendments will ensure that legislators keep control over strategic decisions concerning funding allocations and sectoral priorities.
All proposed amendments were already included in Parliament’s first reading position, which was adopted by plenary with a large majority on 21 October 2010.
However, the Council has flatly rejected all amendments on democratic scrutiny and delegated acts, without proposing any alternative solution which would satisfy Parliament’s demands.
It is unfortunate that during the many months – almost one year – that have passed since the first discussion of the dossier in committee, interinstitutional negotiations have not made any progress. I can assure this House that we have really tried very hard. Negotiations with the Council and the Commission – which should incidentally facilitate these negotiations – started in February 2010. We held three dialogues and several meetings at technical level, both on the contentious issues of delegated acts. On these issues, there has been no rapprochement. Only towards the end of last year did the Commission negotiators come up with a compromise proposal. Parliament immediately reacted with a counterproposal, but this was not reflected in the Council’s position. We understand that it was not formally transmitted to the Member States in the Council.
Despite the hard line of the Council, which is shared by the Commission – something I regret because it is not its constitutional position to do so – Parliament insists on its position. Legally, our arguments are sound. The strategy papers are multiannual programmes, decided under the DCI for example, which fulfil the criteria for the application of the delegated act procedure. They supplement the basic regulation and are of general application. The criteria mentioned in Article 290 are compulsory if they are fulfilled. The Council and Parliament must have a veto right.
This is not a matter of political bargaining or any special arrangements, as that would be contrary to the Treaty. It is a legal obligation. Politically, we have the full support of our Conference of Presidents, which decided on two different occasions – most recently earlier this month – that in all dossiers negotiators should insist on the application of the delegated acts procedure for decisions concerning objectives, the choice of priorities, expected results and financial allocations in broad terms.
We also have a common line among the committees: the rapporteurs in the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Foreign Affairs – respectively responsible for instruments for cooperation with industrialised countries and instruments for human rights and democracy – have adopted the very same approach as I have. All amendments concerning delegated acts from first reading should be reinstated. Our position is plain and simple and fully in line with the mandate of the Conference of Presidents. We will not be divided or have our role as a legislature ignored.
I am convinced that the introduction of the new procedure would also be in the interests of the intended beneficiaries of our financial instruments. Parliament could play its role as watchdog much more effectively and ensure that the money is spent on the core objectives of the Union’s development cooperation defined in the Treaty: the reduction – and ultimately the eradication – of poverty. Twenty-two thousand children do not need to die each day, every day. We demand to have our say on how this issue is addressed.
First of all, a British colleague has criticised the situation with regard to the importance of democracy and human rights. If democracy and human rights were functioning in our Member States, then we would not have children going to school on bread and jam, and that is the reality of it.
Whether in Britain or in any other Member State, I think it is clearly a matter for those Member States to ensure that does not happen. Let us be very clear about what this is all about: not just democracy and human rights. Twenty-two thousand children die each day, every day, a short plane journey from this building. Twenty-two thousand. The good news is that it used to be 34 000. We and others have brought it down to 22 000 because of democracy and human rights and the sort of financial instruments which the Union has approved.
Let us not pit those people against children in our own Member States going to school on bread and jam, which I deplore also. Let our Member State governments get their act together in dealing with those children.
This issue is about implementation or delegated acts. Is it implementation, or is it a delegated act – in which case it is legislation?
I propose to stick completely to Parliament’s first reading and thus to say that we will reinstate – have reinstated – all amendments. These have not been accepted by the Council. The issue at stake is one of principle and is crucial to the future nature of interinstitutional relations in the area of external action.
The amendments proposed by Parliament do not concern the substance of the DCI or the other instruments, but the role of Parliament in the practical implementation of the law.
The objective is to protect the democratic prerogatives of the European Parliament, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty. As co-legislator, we must be able to control, on an equal footing with the Council, the adoption and the execution of strategic decisions on the spending of development aid: how much, where and how. In technical terms, the amendments ensure that certain draft decisions taken by the Commission are recognised as delegated acts as defined in Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
This would give the two branches of the legislative authority the possibility to object to draft decisions which are not in conformity with the requirements of the law. This veto would ensure that Parliament’s suggestions are taken into account when the Commission programmes EU aid."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples