Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-06-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060406.4.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the report on the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2005 is actually included on the agenda. I will not go back over the detail of the report and will merely refer to two sessions, that in Bamako in April 2005 and that in Edinburgh in November 2005, without forgetting the next session, which will be held in Vienna in June 2006. I should like to point out in this Chamber just how worthwhile it is, as was the case this year, for sessions organised in Europe to be held in the country holding the Presidency. It does, in fact, seem extremely logical to maintain and to perpetuate this system, which was adopted two years ago.
I should also like to highlight the very solid contribution of our colleagues from the ACP countries, and we must congratulate them on that. We simultaneously conducted six joint missions, and allow me for the first - but not the last - time to emphasise the adjective ‘joint’. It is essential, in fact, that both the Permanent Assembly and the missions share a joint vision of matters. To do the opposite would make no sense at all. I should also like to point out that an increasing number of horizontal votes between the ACP countries and the EU representation have been held. In my opinion, the practice of separating houses must be drawn on as little as possible without it being necessarily removed from our Rules of Procedure. That being said, it is true that the objective, in the long term, would be to hold an increasing number of votes that make it possible to secure an ACP-EU majority.
Furthermore, it appears that our colleagues from the ACP countries are less involved in what we might call an ‘intellectual’ capacity. By that I mean that we are in agreement with them on the fact that what was an expense for us – namely, in actual fact, the EU expenditure that consists of the ACP budget – is revenue for them. The need for parliamentary control at these two levels is, moreover, becoming increasingly clear to them. To this end, we, for our part, have requested the budgetisation of the EDF in order to guarantee parliamentary control regarding the use of this Community expenditure but, at the same time, the parliaments of the ACP countries also need to submit to parliamentary control what they consider to be revenue. That is a joint battle that we will have to fight if the vital need for parliamentary control is to be recognised.
As for the future of the ACP, I welcome the amendment made to the Cotonou Agreement. The budget for the tenth EDF now amounts to EUR 22.682 billion. We have already complained in this Chamber about this sum, which does not live up to our expectations of EUR 24 billion. The Austrian Presidency has already responded to us. I have no doubt that my fellow Members will shortly take the floor on this subject in order to request a realignment. It is not a matter of endlessly repeating the same questions, but we are awaiting more forceful responses than the ones we have been given.
The EDF surplus also poses a problem. To date, it stands at almost EUR 11 billion, which naturally raises questions about the procedure and the ambition of the projects dealt with, because it is unforgivable that EUR 11 billion should not have been spent in countries that have such glaringly obvious needs.
What does the future hold for the EDF? If we fulfil our political commitments in 2010 and if we succeed in devoting 0.56% of our GDP to development aid, then the European Union will grant an additional EUR 50 billion per year to this budget, even though it had made the political commitment to devote only half of that amount, or EUR 25 billion, to Africa. It is quite clear that if this policy is complied with, the additional aid that is available will actually correspond to one annual EDF budget. Nevertheless, if the way in which we spend that budget were to be examined, it would only raise questions.
Furthermore, I wonder about the proportion of the aid to developing countries that will be managed by the European Union and that will be in the region of 20%. In that case, even if my choice of term is a little strong, the EDF will be reduced to the status of a minor instrument of aid. The problem of its budgetisation, which is absolutely crucial and needs to be done as soon as possible, thus becomes even more acute, as does that of its ‘fungibility’, meaning the possibility of granting very ambitious regional projects, such as rail infrastructure, a place in the European Union’s general system for action. That is what would make it possible to ensure coordination between the member countries and the European Union. The EDF can become that coordination lever, and the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can become an element of specific control, in the knowledge that all of the least developed countries in the world are members of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
Finally, there is above all the problem of understanding European Union policy. What I was describing just now as Community expenditure earmarked for development aid is provided by our taxpayers. As such, action must be clear because it is no good the populists grabbing hold of the figures that I have announced to you and crying out: ‘What on earth are you doing with all of that money?’ We therefore need this matter to be viewed and understood from a political perspective."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples