Mr President, this report comes from a Commission proposal presented in January 2000, a proposal drafted under Articles 149 and 150, which called on the Member States to foster the mobility of people undertaking a course of study, a period of training, voluntary work, or work as a teacher or trainer in another Member State, whether on a Community programme or not. When this recommendation from the Commission was presented to Parliament, it was very quickly clear that it was a flawed document and indeed the Commission accepted this itself. Perhaps with hindsight it might have been easier if we had rejected it some 18 months ago and started again, but we did not and I and colleagues have worked hard to present something to Parliament and to salvage something from it. At our first reading in Strasbourg last October, Parliament voted amendments which I felt would improve the quality of the text, and I announced some of the irregularities and flaws to which I alluded a moment ago. We also sought to extend the scope of the original proposal, for example to include researchers, as had been requested by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Thirdly, we called on the Member States and the Commission to set targets and precise goals to measure the progress towards the goals that had been set, i.e. to set indicators to monitor them. Colleagues may recall this report came before Parliament at a particularly sensitive time for the Commission. I understand that it was anxious to match action with resources and for that reason it rejected all those amendments that required it to take follow-up action. It did not reject all the amendments, only those that asked it to take follow-up action, something that is particularly important. It also rejected anything related to researchers, which I understood. Since then, I have had lengthy deliberations and negotiations with Commission staff, whom I thank for their time, with the French Presidency, which prioritised this report, and indeed latterly with the Swedish Presidency, which has equally been generous with its time and energy. We looked at ways to cover the following important areas: the nature of voluntary work and administrative, financial, linguistic and cultural obstacles to mobility. The common position which has now been arrived at contributes to the clarity of the text, particularly where it deals with third-country nationals. It rejects, however, most of Parliament's amendments on social security and social protection rights, areas that we felt were crucial for interest groups, for students, teachers and others. This is why we have had to make a few amendments to the common position. I presented six amendments at second reading, which refer in particular to the action plan that stemmed from the Nice Summit, which it is important to refer to because it clarifies many of the points that we wanted to raise. I have asked for some follow-up action from Member States. I have looked at ways in which we can reduce the administrative costs of implementing this recommendation. I have clarified, I hope, the follow-up action that is expected of the Commission and removed an unnecessary and potentially harmful qualification in the common position. All of these amendments are admissible and I have had discussions again with the Swedish Presidency to make certain that they are in line. There will be one or two small technical points that I would like to bring up tomorrow as oral amendments, just to clarify the text and for the sake of linguistic consistency. I want to make the report unambiguously clear so that it can go through and Member States are absolutely clear what is expected of them. As a result of this report we will be taking a few, albeit tentative, steps towards creating mobility for those in education, teachers, students, academics and others, so that they can actually move from one country to another within the European Union, make that a reality and take a first step forward.

Political group: PSE