Mr President, I intend to concentrate on Mrs Lalumière’s report in my intervention. On behalf of the entire Group, I would like to express my admiration for the outstanding report by Catherine Lalumière, our highly esteemed fellow Member. My group supports her position and we are grateful for the well-balanced text, which brings out the right points. As you will all be aware, there is to be a new approach to the common foreign and security policy; in which the civilian component will be deemed to be at least as important as the military component. The setting up of the rapid reaction force seems to be coming on apace, for which we extend our compliments. The Member States have made promises that do justice to previously articulated ambitions. Now it is matter of forging an effective and efficient European unit from this, under a clear and unambiguous command. That will be the real test for the European Union in my view. A new dimension is being added to the common foreign and security policy. This makes effective parliamentary control an absolute necessity. Do the Council and the Commission go along with the proposals in the Lalumière report on that score? There are two other remarks we would like to make. The developments I have described will give fresh impetus to the European arms industry, and it certainly needs it. But we want to avoid pressure on exports, which is why we want to improve the rules on arms exports, and we will support an amendment to this end. My group recognises that there will be discussion of the various facets, but is seeking new methods via restructuring in the first instance. We do not rule out the possibility of increasing defence expenditure, but that will have to be assessed on its own merits, also in line with other priorities, for example in the social and economic field. Of course we are much taken with the emphasis the report places on the civilian component of the common foreign and security policy. The impression is sometimes given that the future of the CFSP stands or falls with the establishment of an autonomous military capacity. Is this appropriate? Not if the press is anything to go by at any rate. The rapid reaction force is intended to implement the Petersberg tasks. However, we must not exaggerate the importance of this. Although I do not agree with the cynics who say that it will provide Europe with a pointless toy, it is true that the rapid reaction force will not be immediately deployable in many situations. We regard it as an instrument that can be deployed alongside others, or better still, as one that can be deployed after other instruments, where possible. Conflict prevention is to be preferred over military crisis management. The EU is better equipped than NATO, for example, for such peaceful conflict prevention tasks. We want to strengthen this capacity. We are sometimes sceptical about the European Union’s efforts in this respect. We have developed a kind of fixation with the military instrument. It appears easier to get results using this method. Lip service is often paid to the second part of the Helsinki Decisions, in our view. Such criticism is often responded to with a reference to the headline goals for police deployment or the rapid reaction facility that is now being launched by the Commission. We support these steps but more must be done to strengthen the civilian aspects of the European security policy. We want scenarios and coherent planning. What instruments will we need and when? The key to the European Union is its civilian basis and that is what we want to see clearly brought out in the Union’s foreign policy.

Political group: PSE