Mr President-in-Office of the Council, first of all, I would like to welcome you to this House. We hope that you enjoy these six months and also that cooperation with the European Parliament continues to be as positive and open as it was during the Belgian Presidency. In a constructive spirit, I would just like, on behalf of the Group of the , to express certain doubts and criticisms that we have concerning the focus of the programme you have just presented. Setting the objective of ‘more Europe’ does not necessarily mean wanting a better Europe in the sense of creating a Europe of more democracy, openness and solidarity. (IT) The Spanish Presidency has decided to focus very strongly on combating terrorism. This is certainly a legitimate reflection of Spain’s national policy of eliminating ETA violence once and for all. However, it would appear important to emphasise that it is neither acceptable nor effective to imagine that terrorist violence can be curbed by reducing the significance of some of the most important victories of the European democracies and the Union such as respect for individual freedoms, citizens’ equality before the law and parliamentary control at European as well as national level of all decisions on this matter. We would certainly have been much happier if you had shown your intention to uphold these concepts more clearly. Moreover, it is a matter of no small concern that the Spanish government is concentrating on cooperation with the United States without, at the same time, distancing the Union from those decisions of the US administration which place it outside the rule of law and which could lead to a militarisation of the legal system. Similarly, talking about an international anti-terrorism alliance but remaining silent on the way the Russian government is continuing to terrorise and destroy Chechnya does nothing for the European Union’s credibility. (Applause) Secondly, Mr President-in-Office, your government’s programme includes a list of themes, but it does not clearly define the political vision for European integration. Further evidence of this is the fact that the only task you are entrusting to the Convention, which will start work in two months’ time, is the preparation of tangible, realistic options to submit to the 2004 Conference. Yet, as you are quite aware, this Convention is the product of the failure of Nice, and its success will be measured in terms of its ability to constitute a break with the intergovernmental method of reforming the Union and to involve representatives of the people and civil society in the process of European integration. It is my fervent hope that the Spanish Presidency will support this innovative experiment and accept calmly that we have reached the stage where it is no longer just the States but the citizens and their representatives at European, national and regional levels as well – at regional level too – who can and must be involved in shaping the future of the European Union. On the subject of shared values, I would like to ask you not to underestimate the European dimension of what has been happening in my native country, Italy, where the principle of the separation of powers is constantly being challenged and where there is still a problem with the concentration of media power combined with an unresolved conflict of interests. Thirdly, we are greatly concerned at the cursory treatment in your programme of the issue of sustainable development and the urgent need to respond with practical, incisive action to the environmental challenges facing us. It would appear that this cursory treatment is a direct result of an antiquated idea that the priorities of economic growth and safeguarding the environment and quality of life are still conflicting. In fact, the opposite is true. However, and I cannot stress this enough, the environmental constraints governing the economic, social and fiscal policies of the Union and its Member States continue to be inadequate. In this connection, I would very briefly like to give you two negative examples, which directly concern Spain. The first is the national hydrological plan, against which there is strong opposition in your country, Mr Aznar: 400 000 people protesting in Madrid and 10 000 in Brussels, as well as 25 000 individual complaints to the Commission cannot be ignored, and we will make this matter a priority in our work. We do not accept the claim that the hydrological plan is purely a Spanish affair, not just because the Spanish government wants EUR 8 billion from the Structural Funds to be spent on financing part of it but because, if it were to be implemented, it would violate European legislation on nature conservation and the safeguarding of water resources and would lead to a distortion of competition in the agricultural sector. Also, finally, because the real purpose of the plan is to transfer water resources from poor regions to wealthy regions in order to serve water-intensive farming and tourism development. This is a recipe for disaster, which has already caused havoc that we cannot allow to be repeated. I have other things to say to you, Mr President-in-Office, regarding the liberalisation of the electricity market, but I will save them for another time. In any case, I wish you a successful six month’s work. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE