Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner and Members of the Commission, at this late hour, I would like to use the speaking time available to me to give you a brief introduction to the Commission proposal for a Council regulation concerning the implementation of projects promoting cooperation and commercial relations between the EU and the industrialised countries of North America, the Far East and Australasia, together with my report on it. Apart from the rather misleading formulation of the title, which mentions the industrialised countries and which does not of course include all the industrialised countries in the world, but only those with which we do not have any free-trade areas, cooperation or partnership agreements, I would expressly like to thank the Commission for its proposal for a regulation. As I see it, this is not the only area where it has done some splendid work, bearing in mind all the difficult political debates on this issue that have taken place in the Council, and also the cooperation with the European Parliament, which has perhaps not always been easy, no, it has done something else rather wonderful in that is has actually brought the many and varied, small-scale existing projects and programmes to be found in the aforementioned countries together in a single budget line, thereby creating a legal basis as well. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to say a heartfelt thank you to the Commission for the excellent cooperation we have had. The Commission proposal for a Council regulation under consideration seeks to create a solid legal and budgetary framework to underpin actions taken under the various bilateral agreements signed between the EU and the six industrialised countries mentioned. These actions are currently financed from a number of different budget lines and some have to be undertaken as pilot schemes or preparatory actions due to the absence of a legal basis for the budget lines in question. In producing this proposal for a regulation, the Commission has now created a legal basis. In drafting the proposal, the Commission aimed to ensure that Member States retain the primary responsibility for export promotion. Community action is thus restricted to measures that complement the endeavours of the Member States and other EU public bodies, and – as we always put it so nicely – thereby create European added value. The proposal provides for regular reports to be made in future to the European Parliament and the Council. We have amended it slightly in several places and we have also inserted the stipulation that the regulation is to expire at the end of December 2005. In addition, I have tabled an amendment which I hope the Commission and Council will support, requesting the Commission to submit a new proposal as early as the year 2003, in which it might like to outline the overall framework for a new trade policy and philosophy. This would also solve the dilemma that we are still facing, namely the fact that we have no positive definition of trade policy whatsoever in our Treaty. Instead we only define it in a negative way by excluding what it does not cover. I would be grateful if the Commission could use this positive definition in future. I believe the post-Nice Process lends itself extremely well to this, and in this connection I would also ask the Commission to always keep in mind that Parliament is not happy with the current wording of Article 133. This should come as no surprise to you, Commissioner Patten, rather I assume that, naturally, you are familiar with Parliament’s view of the matter. Incidentally, I would also be grateful if you would include your position in this new wording, i.e. your position in relation to one of the countries, namely the United States, which you have now set out – indeed you have provided a very comprehensive overview of our relations with the United States. I would also like the ruminations that are currently taking place within the Commission, especially on the part of Commissioner Lamy – who would like a policy statement to be produced in the sphere of trade policy at some stage – to be included in a review in the year 2003. The projects, which are now to be financed in concrete terms under this budget line, encompass cooperation projects, business-related training programmes and programmes for promoting trade relations. These include the above-mentioned programmes concerning the United States, and especially those set up with Japan. On a final note, I would like to say another big thank you for all the experimental projects you have tested out in relation to the various countries. It would be beneficial if you could draw conclusions from this, and summarise what you think could be passed on to programmes with other countries, what, in your opinion, may not have proved as successful or what you think does not stand a chance of surviving the post-2005 period. If you carry out this review, then as I see it, we will have an excellent foundation on which to base a real trade policy and philosophy. In the light of globalisation and the next world trade round, you will then have established an excellent basis to my mind. Once again, I would like to thank you warmly for this.

Political group: PSE