Mr President, Commissioner, the present initiative is important for the purpose of making decision makers in general more aware of developments, but also because levels of development differ very greatly from one European country to another. We can also see this from the follow-up document prepared by the Commission. The initiative is important if we are to stop having to say that the United States is the overall leader within this developing field. According to the “2000 IDC/World Times Information Society Index”, published in February, Sweden has overtaken the United States as the leading information economy. The United States occupies second place. Finland, Norway and Denmark follow, in that order. People may hold different views as to the value of this type of investigation, but I think it is important to emphasise that the US model is not the only one which leads to success in the IT society, something which far too many people have said in this House. Scandinavia is acquitting itself well with its social infrastructure and also, perhaps, with its pensions systems. We ought to bear this in mind, something I am convinced the Commission has done. We should also remember that the EU countries are very different from one another and that developments are very rapid. This must be reflected in the action plan. It is also important that the countries which are forging ahead most quickly should not be checked in their development. It is important that we should clarify what is being done at EU level and what is being done with EU resources and that we should be prepared to make changes to regional policy and redirect some resources for research in ways that benefit “e-Europe”. In view of countries’ different levels of development in the IT sphere, I am also sceptical about information plans and campaigns at EU level. “e-Europe” means more than just “e-commerce”. The Directive on electronic commerce deals for the most part with things other than trading on the part of consumers. I should like to appeal to the Commission to pay attention to the question which is being discussed in an adjoining room with Federal Trade Commissioner Thompson: that of how we are to increase consumer confidence. The consumer has to be king when it comes to electronic commerce. Otherwise, it will not properly take off. When alternative ways of solving disputes are discussed, we ought to collaborate globally with the United States. Nonetheless, we should also support the OECD in its work. The issues of broadband communications and of good infrastructure are on the agenda in the majority of countries. There is a need for diversity, but now more standards are being sought for Digital Subscriber Lines with the help of which it will be possible to upgrade the network. It is widely maintained that telephone companies are not making use of the available technology because standards are lacking. Smart cards, encryption, mobile phones and “e-Europe” constitute our strength. We shall persist with developments in these areas but, when it comes to standards, we need to pursue further development. It is not we politicians who should decide on these standards. Instead, we should allow industry to reach an agreement concerning standards where there is a demand for these. Our task is to legislate more quickly and to make for new patterns of legislation where possible. I am glad that this point is made in the report.

Political group: ELDR