Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Amado and Mr Nielson. I am pleased that Mr Amado talked about the EDF. The problem, however, should not be sought within this Parliament or the Commission; it is the Council that needs to make a decision on the EDF budget. This sermon, therefore, really belongs in the Council. Mr President, I thank Mr Nielson. He has talked extensively about the new Lomé Convention, although this is not really the topic of this morning’s meeting. We want to talk about coherence. This is the topic. Ever since the early nineties, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council of Ministers have recognised that this coherence of European policy is leaves something to be desired, especially in the field of development cooperation and in other EU policies. This problem has been highlighted on several occasions, to whit in 1992, in 1995 and 1997. The examples are all quoted in a resolution which lies before us. I have raised questions regarding this issue for years now. In fact, the obligation for coherence of policy was even included in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. In 1998, it was agreed that the European Commission should publish an annual report which highlights any improvements. But what have we seen since then? Fine words, as is the case again today, but no report. It is too crazy for words, really. It is a fact that we are dealing with contradictory policy. Time and time again, good intentions are formulated but nothing is implemented. It is, therefore, with good reason that we bring this up here today. I would like to give you a few examples to illustrate these contradictions. A number of developing countries grow sugar cane for sugar production. In the Union, sugar is produced from sugar beet. In order to prevent this cheap sugar from the developing countries from competing with the more expensive EU sugar, a considerable import levy is imposed on cane sugar. The result is that the export of cane sugar from the relevant countries to the Union is significantly restricted. At the same time, we give these countries an enormous amount of development aid. A Minister from one of the Caribbean islands which produce sugar cane once told me: If you just allowed our sugar access to the European Union, we would not need your development aid at all. Another example is cacao. The European Union intends to permit 5% of alternative fats in chocolate in order to harmonise the internal market. This could just as well be 0% – the internal market would still be harmonised. By pitching the percentage level at 5%, which is now likely to be the case, it is almost certain that hundreds of thousands of small cacao farmers in developing countries will be put at a disadvantage. It seems to be heading this way nevertheless. What are we actually doing then? This is also typical of a policy which makes citizens wonder what Brussels actually does? It seems that European industry is more important here than our own principles, our own coherences and the interests of the developing countries. There are also shocking examples in terms of sanctions and embargoes. Why institute an oil boycott against Haiti and not against Burma, where an elected President is imprisoned, parliament has been sent home and some of the MPs have been put in jail or even murdered? Why not institute an oil boycott against Sudan, where a great deal of the fighting is still going on, with weapons, no less, funded by the oil companies which are based in the same areas where the refugees are? The inconsistency is astonishing. Here too, Mr Nielson mentioned another good example regarding the new Lomé Convention. If the new Lomé Convention is simply put into operation, without eradicating all these inconsistencies from the policy, the policy will then be built on shifting sands – to use a biblical expression. The Council has quoted examples of inconsistency time after time: in agriculture, commerce, in conflict prevention, in the peace operations, in the fisheries sector, migration and environment. Mr Nielson, what we are waiting for is a good report on these inconsistencies and a number of specific proposals to eliminate these from the policy. Once again, all your fine examples, your marvellous policy – and I include the Secretary of State in this – will otherwise be built on shifting sands and will not really come off the ground. This is also at the request of the citizens. We have been saying this ourselves since back in 1992: this is the topic of this debate. I hope the message strikes home and I really hope that you will soon produce a report which contains measures. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE